multi airport concept · 10 april 2020 19.282.05 pag. 2/88 multi-airport concept improved...
TRANSCRIPT
Multi-Airport Concept Improved management of air traffic flows in The Netherlands
1 9 . 2 8 2 . 0 5 • A p r i l 2 0 2 0
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 2/88
Multi-Airport Concept
Improved management of air traffic flows in The Netherlands
Final report
Knowledge and Development Centre Mainport Schiphol
Postbus 75002
1117 ZN SCHIPHOL, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 (0)20 406 39 53
E-mail: [email protected]
To70
Postbus 85818
2508 CM The Hague, The Netherlands
Phone : +31 (0)70 3922 322
E-mail: [email protected]
Represented by:
Tom Verboon
Eugene Tuinstra
René van den Berg
Marc Voogt
NLR - FerWay
Postbus 90502
1006 BM Amsterdam
Nederland
tel.: +31 (0)88 511 3113
e-mail: [email protected]
Represented by:
Nico de Gelder (NLR)
Ferdinand Dijkstra (FerWay)
The Hague, April 2020
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 3/88
Table of Contents
List of acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Objective ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Scope ................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
1.4 Project approach ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
1.5 Reading guide ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
2 Current situation ................................................................................................................................................................ 10
2.1 Characterising the airports ...................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2 ATC sectors ................................................................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Strategic capacity management ............................................................................................................................ 12
2.4 Pre-tactical capacity management ........................................................................................................................ 15
2.5 Tactical capacity management ............................................................................................................................... 17
3 Research ................................................................................................................................................................................ 24
3.1 SESAR 1 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 24
3.2 SESAR 2020 ................................................................................................................................................................... 26
3.3 Departure Metering ................................................................................................................................................... 27
3.4 Metroplex programme .............................................................................................................................................. 28
4 Best-practices ...................................................................................................................................................................... 30
4.1 London region ............................................................................................................................................................. 30
4.2 Paris region ................................................................................................................................................................... 36
4.3 Main observations ...................................................................................................................................................... 42
5 Traffic flow analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 44
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 44
5.2 Description of the method to identify hotspots ............................................................................................... 44
5.3 Traffic flow analysis based on actual flight data ............................................................................................... 45
5.4 Summary of results ..................................................................................................................................................... 53
5.5 Main observations ...................................................................................................................................................... 55
6 Potential measures ............................................................................................................................................................ 56
6.1 Coordinated slot allocation ..................................................................................................................................... 56
6.2 Strategic flight scheduling ....................................................................................................................................... 56
6.3 National daily ATFCM entity and plan .................................................................................................................. 57
6.4 Runway configuration management ................................................................................................................... 57
6.5 STAM ............................................................................................................................................................................... 58
6.6 Traffic synchronization .............................................................................................................................................. 58
6.7 Sector capacity measures ......................................................................................................................................... 59
7 Assessment of potential multi-airport measures ..................................................................................................... 61
8 High-level concept............................................................................................................................................................. 63
8.1 Assumptions and conditions .................................................................................................................................. 63
8.2 Problem statement .................................................................................................................................................... 64
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 4/88
8.3 Concept description .................................................................................................................................................. 65
8.4 Operational scenarios ................................................................................................................................................ 70
8.5 Summary of impacts .................................................................................................................................................. 75
8.6 Potential implementation timeline ....................................................................................................................... 75
9 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 76
9.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................. 76
9.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................... 77
10 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................................................ 78
A ATC sector configurations ............................................................................................................................................... 80
A 1 Amsterdam ACC .......................................................................................................................................................... 80
A 2 MilATCC Schiphol Area ............................................................................................................................................. 81
A 3 MUAC .............................................................................................................................................................................. 82
B Traffic flow analysis - winter season ............................................................................................................................. 84
B 1 Actual demand (number of movements) for winter season 2018 .............................................................. 84
B 2 Capacity surplus - winter season (2018 actuals and growth scenarios 1and 2) ...................................... 85
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 5/88
List of acronyms
AAS Amsterdam Airport Schiphol
AC Area Control
ACC Area Control Centre
A-CDM Airport Collaborative Decision-Making
ACI Airports Council International
ACM Airspace Capacity Management
ACNL Airport Coordination Netherlands
AF ATM Functionalities
AMAN Arrival Manager
ANS Air Navigation Service
ANSPs Air Navigation Service Providers
AO Aircraft Operator
AOP Airport Operations Plan
APOC Airport Operations Centre
APP Approach
A-SMGCS Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATFCM Air Traffic Flow and Capacity Management
ATFM Air Traffic Flow Management
ATIS Automatic Terminal Information System
ATM Air Traffic Management
ATS Air Traffic Service
BARIN Board of Airline Representatives in the Netherlands
B-RNAV Basic Area Navigation
CAA Civil Aviation Authority
CACD Central Airspace and Capacity Database System
CANSO Civil Air Navigation Services Organization
CAP Collaborative Advanced Planning
CDA Continuous Descent Approaches
CDG Charles de Gaulle
CFMU Central Flow Management Unit
CHMI Collaborative Human-Machine Interface
CLSK Commando Luchtstrijdkrachten
CMAN Centre Manager
CTA Control Area, Controlled Time of Arrival
CTOT Calculated Take-Off Time
CTR Control Zone
DCB/dDCB Dynamic Demand Capacity Balancing
DMAN Departure Manager
DMET Departure Metering
DOP Daily Operations Plan
DSNA Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 6/88
DSP Departure Spacing Program
E-AMAN Extended-AMAN
ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference
ETFMS Enhanced Tactical Flow Management System
E-TMA Extended TMA
EU European Union
FAB Functional Airspace Block
FDPS Flight Data Processing System
FIR Flight Information Region
FMA Flow Manager Aircraft
FMP Flow Management Position (ATC); Flow Manager Passengers (AAS)
FMPC Flow Management Position Controller
FUA Flexible Use of Airspace
GA General Aviation
IAF Initial Approach Fix
IATA International Air Transport Association
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IDAC Integrated Departure Arrival Capacity
IDRP Integrated Departure Route Planning
iFMP Integrated Flow Management Position
IFPS Integrated Flight Planning System
ILT Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate
IM Interval Management
INP Initial Network Plan
KDC Knowledge Development Centre
KNMI The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
LACC London Area Control Centre
LARA Local and Sub-Regional Airspace Management Support System
LT Local Time
LTCC London Terminal Control Centre
LVNL Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland
MAC Multi-Airport Concept
MCP Mandatory Cherry Picking
MDI Minimum Departure Interval
MilATCC Military Air Traffic Control Centre
MINIT Minutes-In-Trail
MIT Miles-In-Trail
MUAC Maastricht Upper Area Control
MV Monitoring Value
NEST Network Strategic Modelling Tool
NM Network Manager, Nautical Miles
NMOC Network Management Operations Centre
NOTAMs Notices to Airmen
OCB Operational Capacity Briefings
OSO Operationeel Schiphol Overleg
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 7/88
PBN Performance Based Navigation
PBO Performance Based Operations
PCP Pilot Common Project
P-RNAV Precision-Area Navigation
RAD Route Availability Document
RECAT-EU European Wake Separation Recategorization
RLNM Royal Netherlands Marechaussee
RNAV1 Precision Area Navigation (P-RNAV)
RNAV5 Basic Area Navigation
SES Single European Sky
SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research
SOT Sector Opening Times
STAM Short-Term ATFCM Measures
STAR Standard Arrival Route
STW Slot Tolerance Window
SWIM System-Wide Information Management
TBFM Time-Based Flow Management
TC Terminal Control
TFV Traffic Volume
TLPD Traffic Load Prediction Device
TMA Terminal Control Area
TRA Temporary Reserved Areas
TSA Temporary Segregated Areas
TSAT Target Start-up Approval Time
TTA Target Time of Arrival
TTL Time-To-Lose
TTO Target-Time Over
TTOT Target Take-Off Time
TWR Tower
UAC Upper Area Control
UDPP User-Driven Prioritisation Process
UK United Kingdom
UTC Universal Time Coordinated
VFR Visual Flight Rules
XMAN Extended-AMAN
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 8/88
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Dutch airports have grown considerably over time. This growth takes place almost autonomously. No
mechanisms are established to balance this growth among airports, routes or airspace strategically. It is
assumed that, without profound reformation, the maximum airspace capacity will soon be reached.
The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management has initiated the Dutch Airspace Redesign
Programme’(DARP) or Programma Luchtruimherziening to reform the Dutch airspace. In this programme
there are various ongoing policy activities. The Knowledge Development Centre (KDC) performs research
in support of some of these activities.
In the policy development, the relationship between Schiphol Airport and regional airports is examined
closely. Presumably further independent growth of these airports will lead to bottlenecks in the Dutch
airspace. Although the DARP aims to address these bottlenecks, the Ministry and KDC also want to
carefully consider the ways air traffic can be better handled by jointly managing air traffic. Managing air
traffic into multiple, nearby airports is regarded as a multi-airport environment.
1.2 Objective
The objective of this assignment is to study options of flight scheduling and integral Air Traffic Flow and
Capacity Management (ATFCM) for the Dutch airports of Schiphol, Rotterdam, Lelystad and Eindhoven.
Options in the strategic, pre-tactical and tactical domain are all to be explored. The most feasible options
should be turned into a high-level concept, referred to as the Multi-Airport Concept (MAC), which would
improve the management of traffic flows in the Dutch airspace after 2023.
1.3 Scope
The principle adhered to in this assignment is that airspace redesign in lower airspace should start with
the identification and analysis of the main relevant traffic flows. As a next step arrival and departure routes
and could be designed according to the most appropriate navigation standard and meeting the desired
capacity level. Only then the airspace boundaries could be established effectively. This project is focused
on traffic flows; the development of route and establishment of airspace boundaries is part of the DARP.
1.4 Project approach
Although ATFCM across multiple airports may be missing in Dutch airspace, Air Navigation Service
Providers (ANSPs) in Dutch airspace have several measures to control flows and manage available airspace
capacity. To obtain an understanding of these initiatives, site visits with interviews were held to identify
gaps in the current system. In parallel, data analysis was performed to study actual traffic flows based on
flight plans and radar tracks which helped to quantify the gaps in today’s ATFCM and flight scheduling,
but also estimate the gaps in future scenarios considering autonomous growth of air traffic.
Internationally, several cases exist in which groups of two or more airports exist in a metropolitan area
with highly interdependent arrival and departure operations. These groups of airports are more
commonly referred to as a ‘metroplex’, and research towards optimisation and Air Traffic Management
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 9/88
(ATM) in these areas has been conducted before. Hence, a literature study has been performed towards
the international research on the Multi-Airport Concept and international best-practises.
Using the literature study and an understanding of the current practices, including the current and future
gaps, options for a Multi-Airport Concept can subsequently be explored. Using workshop session with
important stakeholders, promising flight scheduling or flow management options shall be selected which
will be used to describe a feasible operational concept of a Multi-Airport Concept between 2023 and
2035.
1.5 Reading guide
Chapter 2 described the current situation for airports, airspace and ATFCM. Chapter 3 gives an overview of
research on concepts enabling or support a multi-airport concept, while Chapter 4 shows the best-
practises in other, relevant metropole regions. The results of data analysis into the gaps in the air traffic
today and in future are provided in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 shows the potential measures for improvement,
where Chapter 7 assesses these measures on their benefits. Finally, Chapter 8 integrates the most
promising measures into a high-level concept of a multi-airport environment in the timeframe between
2023 and 2035. Conclusions and recommendations wrap-up the study in Chapter 9.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 10/88
2 Current situation
In this chapter an overview is provided of the airports concerned in the study, along with the Air Traffic
Control (ATC) sectors and ATFCM toolset of the three service providers: ATC the Netherlands
(Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland, LVNL), Dutch Air Force (Commando Luchtstrijdkrachten, CLSK) and
Maastricht Upper Area Control (MUAC).
2.1 Characterising the airports
This study focuses on four airports in the Netherlands closely located to each other. Their locations and
layouts are displayed in Figure 1 and listed in Table 1. The three regional airports have a single runway
with a southwest-northeast orientation. Schiphol has six runways in three different orientations. Schiphol
typically uses three of its runways during an inbound or outbound peak and four runways while switching
between these peaks. Off-peak two runways are normally used. The complexity of route design is to a
great extend caused by many runway configurations that can be applied at Schiphol.
Figure 1: The four airports that are in the direct scope of this project.
Lelystad Airport differs from the other airports in this study as it currently only handles general aviation
(GA) traffic. The Dutch government has decided Lelystad will be opened for commercial flights; it is not
yet known when the first commercial flights will be scheduled. In the future concept, commercial flights
will be assumed to take place.
Eindhoven Airport differs from the other airports in this study as it accommodates military traffic. For this
reason, Eindhoven Airport has military tower (TWR) and approach (APP) control that handles both the civil
and military traffic. In the future concept, civil ATC only is assumed. This will standardise operational
procedures and information sharing among units.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 11/88
Table 1: Characteristics of the airports that are in the direct scope of this study
Main runways Distance from Schiphol Types of ATC
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol 18L/36R, 18C/36C, 18R/36L, 06/24, 09/27, 04/22
- Civil TWR and APP
Rotterdam (The Hague) Airport 06/24 25 NM Civil TWR and APP
Eindhoven Airport 03/21 55 NM Military TWR and APP
Lelystad Airport 05/23 30 NM Civil TWR and military APP
Table 2 shows the traffic numbers for the four airports concerned. Schiphol is currently the largest airport
in terms of aircraft movements in The Netherlands. To put Rotterdam and Eindhoven Airport in
perspective: they both have around 10% of that number of movements. Schiphol has reached its capacity
of 500.000 commercial flights. This is an environmental ceiling, not an operational ceiling. From 2021
there is potential for growth up to 540.000 commercial flights, this growth has yet to be earned with noise
reduction measures. Both Rotterdam and Eindhoven are reaching their environmental capacity limits,
there is currently no plan for further growth. Lelystad has no commercial flights at the moment of writing.
A cap of 45,000 commercial flights [1] is currently set for the period until the airspace redesign has been
accomplished.
Table 2: Traffic figures in 2017 for the airports within the scope of this study [2]
Commercial flights General aviation Future traffic
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol 496,739 12,178 From 2021 potential gradual increase to 540.000 flights
Rotterdam-The Hague Airport 16,270 9,979 Max. noise capacity reached
Eindhoven Airport 38,642 1,558 Max. 43.000 flights
Lelystad Airport 0 84,218 From opening max. 10.000 commercial flights, max. 45.000 flights with DARP.
Total 551,651 107,933
2.2 ATC sectors
In the Amsterdam Flight Information Region (FIR), ATC is provided by three service providers: LVNL, CLSK
and MUAC. Each service provider manages their designated parts of airspace. Provision of ATC is divided
into different sectors, so the resulting tasks have a manageable workload for Air Traffic Controllers (ATCO).
ATC sectors usually have a declared capacity. The declared capacity is expressed as the maximum number
of aircraft entering a specified portion of airspace per hour, taking due account of weather, ATC unit
configuration, staff and equipment available, and any other factors that may affect the workload of the
controller responsible for the airspace.
Generally, an increased demand is met by the provision of more sectors so that the traffic (and workload)
is divided over more controllers. Usually this demand is calculated as short-term operational predictions
based on planned flights. Opening/closing of sectors should closely monitor the demand to achieve
efficient use of all available resources. The opening of new sector does not guarantee the sum of the
capacities of the elementary sectors – the combined capacity is a combination of factors such as traffic
flow direction, coordination procedures, in-sector flight times, etc. Therefore, a specific capacity figure is
calculated for every sector configuration.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 12/88
The four airports concerned in the study are each enclosed by their specific Control Zone (CTR) and
Terminal Control Area (TMA). The concept of ATC sectors generally applies to en-route airspace
specifically, in Dutch lower airspace serviced by the ATC units of Amsterdam Area Control Centre (ACC) at
LVNL and Military Air Traffic Control Centre (MilATCC) Area (CLSK) and in upper airspace by MUAC. For
each unit, the area of responsibility and sector configurations is described in more detail in Annex B.
2.3 Strategic capacity management
2.3.1 Slot coordination at ACNL
Airport slots are the permission to schedule a landing or departure at a coordinated airport during a
specific time period. They are issued by an independent slot coordinator. Note that they are not to be
confused with Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM) slots (also referred to as Calculated Take-Off Time
(CTOT) combined with the associated Slot Tolerance Window (STW)) provided by the Eurocontrol Network
Manager.
The main reason to apply slot coordination at an airport is that capacity limitations at the airport are
reached and this is limiting free market-driven growth of operations. Examples of capacity limitations are
the number of gates, terminal capacity and runway capacities. In these situations, conform European
Union (EU) regulation, an independent party should be designated to allocate the scarcely available slots
to create a level playing field between operators.
Airport Coordination Netherlands (ACNL) is the independent non-profit organisation that coordinates the
slot allocation for coordinated airports in the Netherlands. The three coordinated airports in the
Netherlands currently are Schiphol, Rotterdam and Eindhoven Airport. At the moment of writing, it is
uncertain whether Lelystad Airport will be a coordinated airport in the near future.
All three coordinated airports send a capacity declaration to ACNL to indicate their capacity for the
upcoming summer or winter season. In this capacity declaration they describe their slot constraints, which
mainly comprehends the number of slots per 20 minutes that can be used throughout a day. Airports
usually set inbound and outbound peaks in which arrival and departure slots dominate, respectively.
Conditions for the four airports are indicated in Table 3. Moreover, the capacity declaration may set other
restrictions, such as minimum turnaround times and aircraft type restrictions which are beyond the scope
of this study.
During the season there are slot trading mechanisms. Primary trading is when an airline would give its
slots back to ACNL and ACNL would then make the slot available to other airlines. However, secondary
trading is common, in which airlines trade their slots bilaterally.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 13/88
Table 3: Main slot coordination parameters
Inbound slot peaks Outbound slot peaks
Schiphol Airport [3] 0700 – 0820 LT
1000 – 1040 LT
1200 – 1300 LT
1420 – 1520 LT
1720 – 1900 LT
0820 – 0940 LT
1040 – 1140 LT
1300 – 1400 LT
1520 – 1700 LT
1900 – 2040 LT
Eindhoven Airport [4] 2100 – 2330 LT 0700 – 0800 LT
Rotterdam Airport [5] 2200 – 2300 LT 0655 - 0900 LT
Lelystad Airport Not applicable Not applicable
Slot coordination and monitoring
Airport slot coordination could be considered the first ATFCM measure in the strategic phase. It limits the
planned traffic flows in an early stage to a certain capacity rate. To understand the situation in the
Netherlands, we need to look at the local slot coordination process.
Operationeel Schiphol Overleg (OSO) is the consultative body that discusses Schiphol’s capacity
declarations on a seasonal basis. Participating parties during these seasonal meetings are: Amsterdam
Airport Schiphol (AAS), LVNL, aircraft operators (KLM, Transavia, Martinair, TUI, Corendon, easyJet),
Schiphol Airline Operators Committee (SAOC) and the Board of Airline Representatives in the Netherlands
(BARIN). The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (IenW) acts as an observing party during
these meetings.
Capacity declarations from OSO are captured in a seasonal letter to ACNL. It describes slot availability
constraints. This has changed as the old slot allocation decree (Besluit slotallocatie) got updated in
September 2019. AAS has become the main responsible for establishing the capacity declarations. There
are also two extra precautions in effect: the Minister of Transport has the right to intervene and set
constraints and there needs to be a 3-yearly independent evaluation of the capacity declaration process.
The reason for the decree is that the OSO is facing a difficulty reaching consensus due to the scarceness of
slots and the strong economical and/or strategical interests of the parties. Currently, 500,000 commercial
flights are the maximum number of flights Schiphol can accommodate each year. So far, the OSO was able
to collectively make the capacity declarations to stay within this number of flights, but as this limit has
been reached consensus is no longer found.
To ensure the realisation is in accordance with the initial planning, slot monitoring is used. Slot
monitoring in the Netherlands is currently limited to check the historic rights and unplanned night
movements.
Slot monitoring for the historic right is done because of the local rule. When an aircraft operator uses 80%
or more of its slots, it will keep the rights to all its slots for the next year. Otherwise, it will lose all slots. A
slot is utilized when a matching flight occurs on the schedule day of the slot. In order to apply this rule,
ACNL monitors daily operations for so-called “no-ops”, a cleared airport slot without a flight movement.
Virtually all operators tend to keep their historic rights. The only exception are the cargo carriers; their
operations are less predictable and they sometimes risk losing their slots. To overcome this, a new local
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 14/88
rule is introduced starting winter season 2019/2020, in which 25% of the slots that become available will
be open to cargo carriers again.
Stricter monitoring of slots by ACNL is focused on the unplanned night movements at Schiphol Airport. Day
time slots consist of departure slots between 07:00 – 22:39 Local Time (LT) and arrival slots between 07:20
– 22:59 LT. When unplanned night movements occur, they are reported to the Human Environment and
Transport Inspectorate (ILT). ILT decides whether a fine is issued. Rotterdam and Eindhoven are not part of
this regime; ACNL does not monitor unplanned night movements at those airports.
As the slot monitoring is currently limited to historic rights and unplanned night movements, there is no
strong link between airport slots and actual flights. This gives airlines the opportunity to use the flexibility
at Schiphol to strategically compensate for strict slot monitoring at other airports – potentially resulting in
“bunches” at Schiphol which could lead to sector overloads. When the link between airport slots and
actual flights would be strengthened, (pre-)tactical ATFCM measures may be of lesser need.
2.3.2 Pan-European RAD restrictions
Route Availability Document (RAD) restrictions are a measure to confine flight plans for certain city pairs.
These restrictions typically include flight level capping and sometimes restrictions on routes.
RAD restrictions have been a strategical tool for many years. In 2018 the Network Manager (NM) published
several major updates to harmonize and extend the RAD format [6] . They are coordinated on a European
level.
A Dutch example of such a RAD restriction is that flights from Amsterdam and Rotterdam Airport that fly
to the Canary Islands must fly through sector 4 instead of sector 3 during peak periods. This RAD
restriction relieves sector 3, and makes these flights go via London ACC instead of MUAC and Brussels
ACC.
2.3.3 Post-operational analysis at MUAC
The strategical capacity management at MUAC starts one year in advance, when post-operational analysis
is performed in which the previous day of operations is evaluated. During the analysis, the sector
throughputs, controller productivity and sector productivity are evaluated. Additionally, it is evaluated
what in hindsight would have been the best sector configurations throughout the day.
Sector configurations are specific predefined combinations of opened sectors that are handled by a single
ATCO at the radar position. MUAC sector configurations are defined per sector group (one for DECO, one
for Brussels and one for Hannover). This results in three sector configurations at any time that are
determined independently. In Figure 2, the sector configurations for the Hannover sector group are
displayed. A sector configuration may combine horizontally or vertically adjacent sectors, or both.
Determining the sector configuration and thus the number of ATCOs at any time is key. With the expected
traffic growth for the next year and the trends for similar days (same day of the week and the same time of
the year) the analysis results in a first strategical planning of ATCOs. This is governed in the Master Sector
Opening Times (Master SOT) which is determined 9 months in advance. It most importantly should ensure
that the holiday leave of ATCOs does not lead to an understaffing of ATCOs at a certain day.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 15/88
The Master SOT is only the first rough draft for the sector configuration timeline and is refined pre-
tactically and tactically, as described in the following sections.
Figure 2 Sector configurations for the Hannover section group. Note the distinction between the
low (L) and high (H) sectors, the boundary between the two is at FL335 [7].
2.4 Pre-tactical capacity management
2.4.1 Schiphol Capacity Briefings
Operational Capacity Briefings (OCB) are held four times a day at 03:30 LT, 09:15LT, 14:00 LT and 20:30 LT.
and are chaired by the Schiphol Flow Manager Aircraft (FMA) from AAS. During these meetings forecasts
are presented by the Dutch national weather service The Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
(KNMI) and the Schiphol APP supervisor (capacities resulting from amongst others weather and planned
runway configurations) to the Amsterdam ACC supervisor, the Amsterdam Flow Management Position
(FMP), the Technical Supervisor LVNL (maintenance planning) and a KLM Flow and Hub Controller.
Optional attendees include Unit Management by LVNL, the Flow Manager Passengers (FMP) by AAS, the
fire brigade and the gendarmerie force Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (RLNM).
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 16/88
After each briefing the Schiphol APP supervisor distributes the presented capacity forecast Schiphol to a
wider range of stakeholders from which they can decide on required action at their own playing field. The
Amsterdam ACC Supervisor for instance uses this information as a starting point to decide on possible
sector overloads and required ATFCM measures.
Next to this, Schiphol APP presents the expected runway combinations for the next peak hour (inbound
or outbound) on a closed circuit information system that is available to Aircraft Operators (AO). the goal of
sharing is to inform pilots with the latest update on runways to expect and also to cope with deviations
from runway planning in between capacity briefings. This information is also transmitted on an open
radio frequency; the so called “Schiphol Channel 9 broadcast” which operates beside the standard
Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) transmissions.
2.4.2 D-1 project at LVNL
LVNL only communicates severe meteorological conditions, such as when low visibility procedures are
anticipated, at the day before operations to Eurocontrol NM. This can be referred to as ‘D-1’. Contrarily,
LVNL takes note of the Initial Network Plan (INP) as established by NM at D-1. A well-designed preparatory
process at D-1 can be a valuable input for its stakeholders and the network, LVNL declared.
In 2018 LVNL initiated a project to implement a ‘D-1 process’ that should result into a plan for the actual
day of operation [8]. Preparations for this plan start at a maximum of a few months ahead and are
completed at D-1. LVNL Operations will use the plan as a baseline for the actual operations but will adapt
the plan only when the conditions that day require to. Another part of this project is embedding the
governance of the process into the organisation structure, which will not be considered here.
In the first step of the D-1 project, all currently already available information, notwithstanding
fragmented, is being gathered into a single plan that can be published at D-1. This ‘light’ plan will contain
amongst others:
• Current Daily Operations Plan (DOP)
• Weather forecast
• OPS agenda: military exercises (like Frisian Flag) or civil events (like Sail)
• Airspace availability
• Use of special areas
• Sector capacity information (nominal or reduced)
• Requests from adjacent centres
• Requests for special flights (like para jumping, survey or test flights)
• Relevant Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs)
• ATCO announcements
• Maintenance programmes (airport infrastructure, navigation aids, software releases)
In the second step of the project, traffic predictions and duty roster information will be incorporated into
the plan. Lastly, guidelines for pre-tactical ATFCM measures, such as timely regulation of the critical
morning peak will be developed.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 17/88
In the first semester of 2019, trials have been performed. A small group of representatives from the
Operations department participated in the preparations of a D-1 plan and evaluated the plan thereupon
on quality and completeness. Figure 3 provides an illustration of the first two pages of a dummy D-1 plan:
2.4.3 Sector opening times at MUAC
Strategically, the Master SOT is determined as a first draft for the sector opening times at the day of
operations. The Master SOT is monitored up to 2 weeks prior to execution, to ensure that no major
discrepancies exist between SOT and ATCO staffing. Three months in advance, the pre-publication of the
roster is published and two weeks in advance, the roster is published.
After publication of the roster, the SOT is still being refined. For example, by adopting information from
the same weekdays in the two weeks before execution. Note that the roster still allows for optimisation of
the SOT, as the roster makes use of flexible duties. For example, an assigned “morning duty” is refined for
each ATCO to one of the six morning shifts. This means the exact start and end time of an ATCO’s shift can
be optimized to the latest insights.
At D-1 the SOT incorporates the last short-term information from one day before execution. Strikes and
weather are typical types of short-term information that are incorporated.
2.5 Tactical capacity management
2.5.1 Enhanced Tactical Flow Management System
The Enhanced Tactical Flow Management System (ETFMS) is the function applied by the Eurocontrol
Network Management Operations Centre (NMOC) to determine traffic demand for individual ATC sectors
in the network and compare it with the respective monitoring values. When demand exceeds capacity,
Figure 3: Extract of a LVNL D-1 dummy plan.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 18/88
measures can be taken and implemented to reroute or regulate demand. This is carried out by means of
consultation between the ANSPs and NM.
The ETFMS processes information from:
• Flight plan data from the Integrated Flight Planning System (IFPS)
• Traffic volumes and capacities from the Central Airspace and Capacity Database System (CACD)
• Live position reports from ANSPs
• Live position reports from AOs
• Meteorological information
2.5.2 Flow Management Position
The NMOC (formerly known as the Central Flow Management Unit or CFMU) was founded in 1988. It
provides ATFCM services to airspace users operating in the airspace of European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC) member states. In founding the NMOC, a central unit for flow management and supporting, local
FMPs were planned.
In each ACC unit in the NMOC area of responsibility, an FMP is positioned. The FMP is the liaison between
the NM on one side and the ANSP and airports on the other side. The FMP provides the NM with
information about the local situation which the NM will use to improve their network plan to most
effectively use the available capacity within the network. All FMPs in the NM area of responsibility have an
equal status. However, their area of responsibility differs, it generally corresponds to the area of
responsibility of the respective ACC unit. In some cases, for instance the United Kingdom (UK), the FMP
area of responsibility is the combined area of responsibility of multiple ACC units.
NM, in cooperation with Amsterdam FMP at Amsterdam ACC, is responsible for the execution of ATFCM
measures within the Amsterdam FIR. The responsibility of Amsterdam FMP is primarily tactical flow
management. The Amsterdam FMP integrates information from the previous flow management stages
into the decision making about for instance traffic regulations. The Flow Management Position Controller
(FMPC) is the duty officer of Amsterdam FMP. His hours of operation are from 06:20 to 23:00 LT. Outside
these hours of operation, the ACC supervisor represents Amsterdam FMP.
2.5.3 Traffic volumes
The Traffic Volume (TFV) is a mechanism being used to monitor traffic demand in a customized airspace
volume. A TFV can also be used to apply traffic regulations to flights crossing the volume. A TFV is always
linked to a reference location. This can be a geographic location like an airport, airspace or navigation
point. A common method of visualising TFVs is to use 20-minute time block summing the traffic counts.
Another method is to use 20-minute time block summing the traffic counts for the upcoming hour, called
a rolling hour. In the traffic counts, there is usually a distinction between planned flights and already
activated flights.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 19/88
Most TFVs come with a Monitoring Value (MV). For Amsterdam FMP the MV equals the nominal hourly
capacity of the TFV. So, if the traffic demand exceeds the MV, the TFV requires the attention of the FMP.
Each TFV has its unique identifier consisting of a maximum of eight characters. The most commonly used
TFVs for the Amsterdam FMP are:
• EHFIRAM
• EHARTIP
• EHSUGOL
• EHRIVER
• EHSECT3
EHFIRAM is the most used TFV for traffic regulations by Amsterdam FMP. It is a volume slightly exceeding
the boundaries of the Amsterdam FIR. It is only focused on traffic arriving at Schiphol. It excludes domestic
flights from De Kooy, Lelystad and Rotterdam to Schiphol. EHARTIP, EHSUGOL and EHRIVER concern the
same volume, however they target arrivals over the respective individual initial approach fixes. Lastly,
EHSECT3 is a TFV exactly matching the Amsterdam ACC sector 3 and concerns all traffic crossing it,
meaning also potential traffic heading to Eindhoven, Lelystad and Rotterdam.
Figure 4: The traffic volume that is used for EHFIRAM regulations. Note that EHFIRAM regulations
only regulate the FIR entry rate of inbound flights to Schiphol [9]
2.5.4 ATFCM measures
Tactical assignment of ATCOs
The ACC supervisor is in charge of setting the sector configuration at Amsterdam ACC. Based on the
sector configuration, he assigns ATCOs. The supervisor has the authority to split combined and individual
sectors, to deploy stack controllers and to eventually implement additional measures to affect or regulate
the demand.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 20/88
The initial planning scheme for ATCOs at ACC takes into account that all stacks could be manned by a
stack controller. Normally this would not be necessary, which means they can be assigned to a different
task tactically. Although MUAC does not use stack controllers, a similar approach applies to the rostering.
Minimum Departure Interval
Sometimes, a Minimum Departure Interval (MDI) is applied to restrict the number of departures per time
interval at airports within the Amsterdam FIR. MDIs on request of the Amsterdam FMP supervisor are
uncommon. Also, MUAC confirms the MDIs are rarely applied.
Cherry picking
Cherry picking is a measure where the FMP precisely controls a single flight plan to optimise for the
greater good. For LVNL examples of cherry picking are repositioning flights from Groningen to Schiphol.
In that case, they would control the exact departure time of that flight to relieve the sectors involved as
much as possible. MUAC makes great use of cherry picking in consultation with AOs and NM. More on
their use cases under ATM portal at MUAC.
Separating air traffic flows
The radar controllers at Amsterdam ACC solve ATFCM issues by horizontally and vertically separating
traffic flows. During fog conditions for instance, a tactical measure could be to purposely add more flights
to a holding, such that when the conditions change for a moment, the (temporary) capacity increase is
fully utilized.
Rerouting
One of the tactical measures that can be taken, is to reroute arrivals or departures via a different ATC
sectors. A common measure for instance is to have KLM aircraft from Norway enter via SUGOL in sector 5
instead of ARTIP in sector 1, to relieve ARTIP as busy entry stack.
Sector briefings
At the initiative of one of the sector parties, a sector briefing can be requested if an ATC exceeding
capacity disruption is expected, such as in winter conditions, a strike, a grounding ban or a severe storm.
The sector briefing decides jointly on the expected circumstances what the maximum take-off and
landing capacity will be.
Air traffic regulations
As a last resort, air traffic numbers can be regulated. A regulation can be set for a specific TFV to prevent
congestion in that volume. It aims to limit the amount of entries into that TFV both laterally and vertically.
To accomplish this, the Network Manager (NM) issues CTOTs at outbound stations to restrict the
departure to the STW (CTOT-5 to CTOT+10 minutes). If necessary, NM delays (certain) flights before going
airborne by setting a CTOT later than the Target Take-Off Time (TTOT). This ensures the TFV with the
regulation is relieved sufficiently.
The FMPC requests regulations to NM to prevent congestion of air traffic within the Amsterdam FIR.
Regulations are often set for all inbound flights to Schiphol (EHFIRAM), but it is also possible to regulate a
stack (e.g. ARTIP, i.e. all inbound flights to Schiphol via ARTIP).
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 21/88
In general, regulations are not fully effective, as there still tends to be an overshoot during peak hours
with respect to the set capacity rate. Firstly, this is due to the STW at the outbound stations, that still allow
for some variation in traffic. Secondly, pilots may fly faster or take a shorter route than anticipated and
therefore create some overshoot. Thirdly, the inbound regulation for the Amsterdam FIR is not always the
most penalizing, especially when there are capacity issues elsewhere in Europe.
2.5.5 Workload model at LVNL
LVNL has developed a so-called workload model in-house. Its purpose is to estimate the nominal
workload of the controllers on duty. With the developed workload model the traffic demand can be
analyzed based on traffic numbers as well as complexity. These workload estimations can, in turn, be
compared to the traffic counts provided by the NM. The NM data is still dominant in the decision making;
nonetheless the workload model strongly helps to interpret and differentiate the traffic counts.
The workload model is under constant development by LVNL. Currently the model is focused on the ACC
controllers. It can represent the workload with 5-minute time bins with workload estimations for the next
20 minutes (rolling 20 minutes). Flights are classified based on their sector entry time. Furthermore,
computations are based on nominal conditions with no (extreme) meteorological conditions, no holdings
active and no direct routings. In the model each pair of flights on their specific routes corresponds to a
pre-determined workload, based on a computation of three different factors: task load, complexity and
interaction. For example, the workload increases when there is interaction between a pair of flights on the
same route and flights on different, conflicting routes. The total workload estimation is computed based
on an extensive matrix of parameters. The numbers in this matrix are pre-determined by expert
judgement of experienced ACC controllers.
Figure 5: Impression of workload model at LVNL [9]
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 22/88
2.5.6 Integrated FMP and ATM Portal at MUAC
In the operational room at MUAC various tools are in use to maintain a controlled and stable operation.
The integrated Flow Management Position (iFMP) and ATM Portal are examples of such tools, significantly
extending the toolset provided by NM.
iFMP
The primary ATFCM decision making tool at MUAC is the iFMP. It was developed to address the growing
demand, structural airspace limitations and demand fluctuations, while meeting targets set by the Single
European Sky (SES). One of the main drivers of the iFMP for MUAC is to make the most of valuable finite
ATM resources such as airspace and ATCOs. The iFMP provides operational staff with an integrated air
situation picture. It visualises expected sector complexity and includes a sector optimiser and an overview
of planned airspace use by military users. Besides its application in the tactical phase, iFMP generates a
substantial amount of data used for the purpose of its post-operational analysis.
The iFMP capabilities are derived from multiple sources of data sourced externally and from within MUAC.
External data sources include:
• NM – airspace entry predictions and imposed take-off times (ETFMS Flight Data)
• ANSPs – planning of Temporary Segregated Areas (TSAs), Temporary Reserved Areas (TRAs) by
military users
• Meteorological information for relevant airports
Within MUAC, data is sourced from the Flight Data Processing System (FDPS) and manpower planning
tool TimeZone. The FDPS consists of local trajectory predictions including controller inputs and
operational constraints while TimeZone allows for local sector opening time planning. Better traffic
predictions are expected to allow for more improved decision making. Through traffic dispersion
advisories, sector load could be distributed better. Short-Term ATFCM Measures (STAM) such as level-
capping, reroutings or speed-constraints could be tested real-time and communicated electronically with
the NM and adjacent centres [10].
Figure 6: Impression of the integrated Flow Management Position (iFMP) [10].
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 23/88
ATM Portal
Next to the iFMP, MUAC has the capability to view aircraft-specific schedules at least a day ahead. This
information is collected from the NM and accessed by operational staff at MUAC through the so-called
ATM Portal. In general, only critical flights to an AO’s network or flights nearing the curfew at an airport
are considered. These flights are ranked based on factors such as delay and transfer capabilities. This
allows for making careful decisions on whether these critical flights should be subject to a STAM such as
rerouting or even be excluded from any measure that would work out to cause additional delay,
previously described as cherry picking.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 24/88
3 Research
In this Chapter the most relevant concepts under research which could enable and assist in the
implementation of a Multi-Airport Concept are summarised.
3.1 SESAR 1
In Europe, under the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) 1 programme several solutions were
addressed such as AMAN (Arrival Manager), DMAN (Departure Manager), CMAN (Centre Manager) and
point-merge. These solutions could be enablers for the Multi-Airport Concept in The Netherlands, as
outlined in Chapter 8. Next a summary of the relevant solutions and their degree of maturity. Multiple
SESAR sources were used [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].
3.1.1 Extended Arrival Management (AMAN) horizon (solution 05)
Extended-AMAN (E-AMAN or XMAN) allows for the sequencing of arrival traffic much earlier than is
currently the case. By extending the sequencing of the arrival traffic further upstream (up to 200NM from
the airport) a more stable, predictable and smooth arrival sequence can be obtained. ATCOs in the
upstream sectors, which may be in a different control centre, obtain system advisories to support an
earlier pre-sequencing of aircraft. ATCOs implement those advisories by, for example, instructing pilots to
adjust the aircraft speed along the descent or even before top-of-descent, thus reducing the need for
holding and decreasing fuel consumption. The result of this implementation is that need for holding is
and traffic congestion are reduced, which furthermore translates into less noise and emissions.
This solution is available for industrialization. Currently there are ongoing trials for London Heathrow (section
4.1) and it is part of synchronized deployment plans across Europe in accordance with the Pilot Common
Project (PCP).
3.1.2 Arrival Management into Multiple Airports (solution 08)
Although AMAN solutions are available for the purpose of a foresighted, cross-sectorial arrival planning,
the current capabilities of these AMAN systems are not sufficient for the special case of a multi-airport
environment where numerous arrival and departure streams are handled to the various airports in
close vicinity. The main issue is the absence of a coordinated planning. Another issue of a multi-airport
environment is the limited dimension of the TMA(s) and their adjacent en-route sectors which does not
allow the controllers to implement sufficient Time-To-Lose (TTL) without both a drastic increase in
workload and decrease of flight efficiency.
Therefore, an additional arrival planning component “CMAN” which accompanies the AMANs of the
airports was developed [16]. schematically shows the interaction between AMAN and CMAN. It aims to
support coordination of traffic flows into multiple airports in the same vicinity to enable smooth delivery
to the runways and enable the controller to manage the interaction of flows in an efficient way without
overload situations. The system generates a combined planning for several arrival streams into different
airports by calculating the sequence of aircraft flying towards an area in an Extended TMA (E-TMA) en-
route sector where their routes intersect. By imposing an adequate spacing of the aircraft in that area
(“sector flow”), a TTL for the appropriate upstream ACC sector is calculated to meet this constraint. The
ATCO in the upstream sector will be presented with the superimposed TTL from the AMAN and the CMAN,
i.e. the highest amount of required TTL of either AMAN or CMAN will be shown. CMAN aims to increase Air
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 25/88
Navigation Service (ANS) efficiency, enhance predictability, and timely avoidance of traffic bunching in
the E-TMA sectors.
This solution has been implemented in Zurich and is planned for implementation in Germany and Portugal.
XMAN (solution 05) is considered a pre-requisite for this solution.
Figure 7 Extended TMA with multiple airports and AMAN extended horizon [16]
3.1.3 Departure Management baseline for integrated AMAN-DMAN (solution 106)
The basic DMAN was designed to support current Departure Management procedures which are
established for controlling target times at start-up approval. The main function of the Basic DMAN is to
produce an optimized pre-departure sequence by taking into account all the information available for
each departure aircraft (scheduled times, slot constrains, target times for off-block and take-off, taxi times,
runway capacity, airport constrains, aircraft readiness to leave the stand, etc). The information exchange is
supported by A-CDM (Airport Collaborative Decision Making) platform.
The basic operational concept also supports DMAN integration with arrival manager (AMAN) and
Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (A-SMGCS). DMAN and A-SMCGS need to be
integrated in order to compute and provide the most accurate information: Target Start-up Approval Time
(TSAT) and TTOT are calculated and provided by the pre-departure sequencing function of the DMAN,
using accurate taxi times provided by the A-SMGCS routing and planning function. The obtained
optimized pre-departure sequence enables more predictable traffic, reduces queues at the runway,
contributes to on time performance, and reduces fuel burn and carbon emissions.
The solution has been implemented at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport (CDG). This solution is available for
industrialization. DMAN synchronized with pre-departure sequencing is part of synchronized deployment plans
across Europe in accordance with the EU PCP.
3.1.4 Flow-based Integration of Arrival and Departure Management (solution 54)
The solution enhances the coordination method currently in use between the approach and the tower by
introducing a new operational method where both controllers pro-actively agree on a defined “sequence
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 26/88
pattern” of arrivals and departures, i.e. the number of departures that will be placed in between
successive landings, based on an integrated arrival / departure picture built for the runway.
Departure flow to the runway is currently managed by the pre-departure sequencing planning tool, while
arrival flow to the runway is managed by arrival metering. The solution is defined as “flow-based
integration” since it aims to optimize traffic flows, i.e. coupled pre-departure sequencing and arrival
metering. Controllers are requested to follow the pattern, but they are not expected to exactly follow the
planned sequence of aircraft. This solution allows increasing predictability and to reduce or at least better
manage delays in a busy single runway environment. Also, the solution contributes to a small increase in
runway throughput and reduction of fuel consumption.
This solution is planned for implementation at the following airports: Vienna, Paris Charles de Gaulle, Milan
Malpensa, Rome Fiumicino, Riga, Warsaw Chopin.
3.1.5 Point Merge in complex TMA (solution 107)
Point Merge is a method developed by the EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre; it enables the merging of
traffic flows, whilst incorporating the predictability of precision navigation, but affording ATCOs a degree
of flexibility in the way they manage aircraft associated with traditional ATM. By using standard
sequencing legs ahead of the Initial Approach Fix (IAF), replacing or next to conventional holdings, aircraft
can be guided along shorter or longer distances in order to reach a single-entry point. For a busy terminal
area ATCOs can start to sequence arrivals at an earlier stage. It also results in pilots receiving fewer
interventions and being able to fly a more efficient approach path down to the runway. Point merge
procedures builds upon Precision-Area Navigation technology (P-RNAV) for merging traffic into a single-
entry point, which allows efficient integration and sequencing of inbound traffic together with
Continuous Descent Approaches (CDA). The previously developed concept is further developed to cater
for airspace constraints or multi-airport TMAs.
The concept is expected to deliver significantly reduced controller workload, improved situational
awareness for pilots and reduced radio telephony. This enables safety improvements and also enables
effective delivery of traffic to meet airport capacity requirements, i.e. making best use of available airport
capacity. Aircraft are expected to spend less time holding but there is likely to be a slight increase in the
distance flown, and therefore fuel burnt, for arrivals. However, departing aircraft are expected to have far
more efficient climb profiles (lateral and vertical), which reduces fuel burnt and noise pollution.
This solution is available for industrialization. Point Merge has been already implemented in many airports in
several countries all over the world. The first airport was Oslo in 2011 and the first multi-airport environment
was Paris in 2013. Solution 108 addresses the coupling of AMAN and Point Merge, yet implemented in
Germany, France and Ireland and planned in Italy and Portugal.
3.2 SESAR 2020
In its new wave of solutions, SESAR 2020 is investigating new ideas and expanding on already delivered
solutions from SESAR 1. The solutions briefly described below are candidates for the second wave of
research and development, which means that they are not yet ready to be delivered and further testing is
still being performed.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 27/88
3.2.1 Extended Arrival Management with overlapping AMAN operations and interaction with DCB and CTA (solution PJ.01-01)
This solution researches the further extension of the arrival planning distance and incorporating more
complex and high-density environments where the en-route sector serves more than one airport or TMA.
This solution takes into account constraints applied for dynamic Demand and Capacity Balancing
(DCB/dDCB) purposes and integrates information from multiple AMAN systems, enabled by SWIM,
operating out to extended ranges into en-route sectors using local traffic/sector information and
balancing the needs of each AMAN. The interaction between Traffic Synchronization and DCB, including
the identification of integration needs, and Controlled Time of Arrival (CTA) in high density/complexity
TMAs is also addressed.
3.2.2 Use of arrival and departure management information for traffic optimization within the TMA (solution PJ.01-02)
In this solution TMA traffic is managed in near real-time, taking advantage of predicted demand
information provided by local AMAN and DMAN systems to identify sector overload or spare capacity, and
to resolve complex interacting traffic flows in and around the airport. Sector load can be balanced by
controlling sector entry times or waypoint times using instructions such as speed advisories, CTA, ground
delay or alternate routing. Where multiple airports are included, this solution addresses departure
synchronization from more than one airport, through data sharing of specific events such as TTOT or the
flow of aircraft through specific waypoints. Data sharing can be also used to optimize traffic flow when
arrival and departure routes cross at similar altitudes.
3.2.3 Enhanced collaborative airport performance planning and monitoring (solution PJ.04-01)
This solution builds upon the integration of the airport into the network, particularly Airport Operations
Centre (APOC) and the information in the Airport Operations Plan (AOP) and relies on A-CDM. That
integration was part of SESAR 1 and is ready for implementation. Now, the goal of this solutions is to also
extend that integration to items such as landside processes (baggage and passenger flows), status
updates generated by Target Off-Block Times (TOBTs), infrastructure inefficiencies, or other airport ground
related issues and failures. This information sharing is supported by SWIM.
3.2.4 Enhanced collaborative airport performance management (solution PJ.04-02)
This solution aims at increased situational awareness and, thus, a more pro-active management of the
airport, by means of a dashboard which contains key performance indicators from both landside and
airside processes of the airport. This not only includes the evaluation of current data but historical data as
well. Forecast and what-if scenarios are also supported contemplated for this solution. The goal is to
support airport stakeholders in their decision-making.
3.3 Departure Metering
Eurocontrol in cooperation with NATS has undertaken to study the feasibility of benefits of Departure
Metering [17], which is a procedure for alleviating traffic bunching in busy airspaces where several
departures flows from different airports merge and when this problem cannot be solved within the NM
granularity limits.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 28/88
Departure Metering (DMET) will constrain particular aircraft by means of either advancing or delaying
them, on top of departure slot that may have been assigned by the NM. Advancing aircraft implies to
speed up aircraft during the initial climb, however this is hard to realise. Also delaying aircraft during the
initial climb is hard, aircraft are mainly delayed while still on the ground. The aim of these measures is to
spread out the bunch and flatten traffic peaks at particular merge points, normally the TMA exit points or
at other points where the ATCO workload can drastically increase.
Research conducted by Eurocontrol has shown that Departure Metering is a feasible solution for avoiding
bunching in a busy TMA with multiple departure flows from different airports. Like AMAN and Point
Merge this solution delivers enhanced efficiency of airspace, especially in the (extended) TMA. This
improvement has its limitations and it will not be the solution for long-term traffic growth. There is a point
from which an airspace redesign and/or runway reconfiguration are needed in order to accommodate
higher levels of departure demand.
This particular case studied was the London TMA including five major airports. In this considered case the
traffic rate over TMA exit points is limited to a certain number of aircraft per certain time period, e.g. 5
aircraft in 10 minutes. Aircraft levels exceeding that limit rate will lead to aircraft obtaining a departure
delay in order to satisfy the assigned limit rate and thereby to smoothen the merging departure traffic
peak. It is conceivable to apply different measures with the same objective. One possible measure would
be to apply spacing constraints such as Miles-In-Trail (MIT) limits or Minutes-In-Trail (MINIT) limits.
For optimal results, Departure Metering should be integrated with the DMAN of the respective airports, so
the time constraints imposed can be integrated and optimized.
3.4 Metroplex programme
In the United States, one of the key goals within the NextGen modernization program of the Federal
Aviation Administration, is the improvement of metroplexes (metropolitan areas with several airports and
complex air traffic flows, usually one major city with more than one commercial airport in a shared
airspace) in terms of efficiency, capacity and environmental impact, 21 metroplexes were identified and
the initial effort have been allocated to those which are expected to yield near-term benefits, they are all
listed in Table 4.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 29/88
Table 4 Summary Metroplexes analysed by FAA [18].
The metroplex program is performed in collaboration with aviation stakeholders by means of the
optimization of the airspace and procedures, in particular new Performance Based Navigation (PBN)
procedures are designed and Time-Based Flow Management (TBFM) is used. For instance, currently in
New York metroplex the Departure Spacing Program (DSP) is being deployed to manage departure fix
constraints. DSP is expected to be replaced by the Integrated Departure Route Planning (IDRP, a decision
support tool to support proactive Traffic Flow Management decision-making) and Integrated Departure
Arrival Capacity (IDAC, a tool that coordinates departure times between several airports, provides
situational awareness to ATC and identifies possible departure slots).
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 30/88
4 Best-practices
In this Chapter two relevant metropole regions with multiple airports are discussed. These metropole
regions are London and Paris. For each region, the airport and airspace characteristics as well as specific
ATFCM measures are described. In general, the information is obtained from publicly available sources,
some detailed information is extracted from an international benchmark on capacity management by
LVNL [19].
4.1 London region
4.1.1 Airports
The London region consists of six main international airports: Heathrow, City, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted
and Southend. Heathrow and Gatwick can be regarded as the main hubs. Combined they account for
more than half of the total 1,213,033 movements carried out by the six main airports in the London area in
2018. To put these movements into perspective, the smallest airport in the London area: Southend, has a
comparable number of movements as the second largest airport in The Netherlands: Eindhoven Airport.
Under the Traffic Distribution Rules 1991 whole plane cargo services or general or business aviation
cannot be operated at Heathrow or Gatwick airports during periods of peak congestion declared for each
scheduling season, without permission from the airport operator [20].
Table 5: Traffic figures for the main airports in the London area in 2018 [21]
Airport Air Traffic Movements*
London Heathrow 477,604
London City 80,854
London Gatwick 283,919
London Luton 136,511
London Stansted 201,614
London Southend 32,531
Total 1,213,033
*Commercial movements only (air transport, positioning flights and local movements, excludes test and training, aero club, private, official, military, business aviation and other flights).
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 31/88
Figure 8: Main airports in the London area
Table 6: Characteristics
Airport Main runways Distance from Heathrow
London Heathrow 09L/27R
09R/27L
-
London City 09/27 19NM
London Gatwick 08L/26R
08R/26L
22NM
London Luton 08/26 24NM
London Stansted 04/22 36NM
London Southend 05/23 43NM
4.1.2 Airspace structure
NATS controls the airspace above the London area. This airspace is divided into London Terminal Control
(TC, surface to FL245) and London Area Control (AC, FL245 to FL660). Both are controlled from the London
Terminal Control Centre (LTCC) and London Area Control Centre (LACC) in Swanwick. Contrary to The
Netherlands, tower control in the Aerodrome Control Zone (CTR) is a commercial service not reserved for
NATS. After take-off the flight leaves the CTR is handed over to NATS before entering the TMA (Figure 9)..
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 32/88
Figure 9: London TMAs
London Heathrow, City and Gatwick are co-located within LTMA 1 (2500ft – FL195), with Luton, Stansted
and Southend co-located in the adjacent LTMA 3 (3500ft – FL195).
Figure 10: Southern CTA (FL195 - FL245)
The LTMAs go up to FL195, above which the Southern Control Area (CTA) is located (Figure 10). This
airspace goes up to the lower limit of LACC airspace (FL245).
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 33/88
4.1.3 ATC sectors
The London Terminal Control Area (TMA) is split into two groups or banks, TC North and TC South, which
not only relates to the position of the airspace sector relative to London Heathrow, but also the direction
in the Terminal Control Room in which that sector's controllers face when at their radar consoles. TC North
is further split into North East, North West. TC South is further split into South East and South West. There
can be a total of 10 subsectors configured. At its busiest, each sector will have an individual radar
controller. When it is quieter sectors are "band boxed" with one controller operating multiple sectors, until
at night there may only be one controller operating the whole bank.
Aircraft departing Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton (to the north or west only), and Stansted mostly depart on a
free-flow principle: the radar controllers do not release each individual flight for departure, they just
receive an indication on their radar screen that a flight is pending. In this case the tower controller can
decide on the most efficient departure order. In many cases the departure route does not conflict with the
approach sequence of aircraft arriving at the airport, so the airport's approach control does not need to
handle the aircraft and it is transferred straight to the TMA controller on departure. The TMA controllers
then climb the departures through the arrivals to the airports that they are also working.
Arrivals to the London airports usually follow standard arrival routes and are descended against the
departing traffic, sorted out into different levels, and routed to various holds (generally at the end of
STARs), where they will hold until the approach control units are ready to position them into an approach
sequence to land. Dedicated approach control units for the five major London airports are also controlled
from TC, plus the radar approach services for Biggin Hill. Each approach unit has more than one sector.
Most of the work for the approach units is controlling the sequence of aircraft making an approach at an
airport from the holds until established on final approach about four miles away from the airport. The
approach units also handle some aircraft departing from the airport, when that aircraft's departure
conflicts with the approach sequence.
Slightly unusual to the approach sectors at TC is that some of them can be staffed by two controllers at a
time, making transmissions on the same frequency.
4.1.4 Route design and procedures
In the UK, Basic Area Navigation (B-RNAV or RNAV5)1 is mandated to the base of the airway structure on all
existing routes. Current CAA guidance requires all new ATS routes to be designed in line with RNAV12.
specification which requires a higher degree of navigation accuracy resulting in concentration of aircraft
on route centrelines with the potential to increase airspace capacity (NATS, 2015).
The route design into the five major London airports is largely laterally and vertically separated which
allows the airports to operate independently to a certain degree. There is no clear policy set in case routes
do overlap, radar controllers solve this tactically.
1 B-RNAV or RNAV5 is an equipment specification which permits aircraft to navigate without the use of point source
navigation aids. To meet the specification, aircraft track keeping accuracy must be within +/- 5 nautical miles of the
route for at least 95% of the time.
2 RNAV1 is a performance requirement of +/- 1 nautical mile for at least 95% of the time
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 34/88
4.1.5 Airspace Capacity Management
Airspace Capacity Management (ACM) activities at NATS are organised in four planning phases; of
strategic, pre-tactical, tactical and post-operations. Fundamental to these activities are partnership
agreements between NATS and various stakeholders which enable a transparent collaboration while
maintaining confidentiality.
4.1.6 Strategic: Strategic team
Strategic ACM is carried out by the strategic team which comprises of office staff with an operational
background. Its main activity is carrying out operational evaluations on a seasonal and monthly basis.
These evaluations commence a year to a week before actual day of operation. The work mainly consists of
collecting data on flight schedules and special events. In collaboration with an ACC supervisor, ATCO or
other relevant experts the Strategic ACM team carries out impact analyses to create an estimation of the
impact of future events and the consequences for the operation. These analyses provide a forecast of the
available airspace and required ATCO staff related to a future actual day of operation.
Analyses carried out by the Strategic ACM team are supported by NATS analytics. This department is
responsible for data collection, warehousing and development of performance metrics used for
dashboarding purposes. Examples of data used in the dashboard are:
• Regulations
• Available capacity
• Deployed ATCO
Three months to a week before the actual day of operation the forecast is more fine-tuned and serves as
the basis for ACM activities in the pre-tactical phase (D-7 to D-1).
4.1.7 Pre-tactical phase: D-1 planning
Based on the D-7 forecast carried out by the Strategic ACM team, the FMP team works towards creating a
D-1 planning. Terminal airspace planning becomes quite stable from approximately D-5 days. An ACC
Supervisor is involved in the D-1 process which reduces the amounts of adjustments on the actual day of
operation.
Figure 11: Route structure London area
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 35/88
A tool used by the team is NEST (Network Strategic Modelling Tool) from Eurocontrol which can load
traffic predictions from PREDICT data directly from the NM. With this tool the team simulates ‘scenarios’
which are based on bilateral agreements with adjacent ANSPs before being shared with the Network
Manager. It serves as an instrument to reduce regulations in the tactical phase.
Alignment between civil and military users is enabled through an airspace booking process using the
airspace booking tool LARA (Local and Sub-Regional Airspace Management Support System) from
Eurocontrol. Based on the bookings, in which military missions are leading, NATS analyses the effects on
airline efficiency. To ensure optimal functioning of Flexible Use of Airspace (FUA), NATS actively monitors
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) such as the availability and use of Conditional Routes.
The final D-1 planning is published at 16:00LT before the day before operations. Where relevant, it
contains agreements with customers of NATS related to the actual day of operation. These agreements
are made in consultation with the ACC supervisor. The D-1 planning is also incorporated in a UK/Irish
Functional Airspace Block (FAB) D-1 report in a reduced form.
4.1.8 Tactical: Extended Arrival Management
The priority for airlines flying into London Heathrow is to maximise the runway capacity. In support of this
priority, holding stacks are applied to ensure a continuous demand. An average ‘holding delay’ of six
minutes was deemed acceptable between NATS and the airlines. However, reality showed this average to
be nine minutes. The three minutes of delay attributed by NATS had to be addressed somehow.
As part of a broader strategy to reduce holding times for London Heathrow, the UK/Ireland FAB, MUAC
and Direction des Services de la Navigation Aérienne (DSNA) collaborate in extending the arrival
management systems to better absorb delay in the en-route phase of flights, reducing the need for
excessive holding. In a running trial, NATS can request MUAC or DSNA to have flights under their control
to reduce their speed (e.g. ‘reduce speed by 0.02 Mach’). It is still regarded as a delicate process to both
avoid overstacking as well as understacking.
Figure 12: Extended AMAN and speed reduction horizons
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 36/88
4.1.9 Tactical phase: Flow Management Position
The UK has established a single FMP to act as liaison between NATS and the Network Manager. The
position is manned in shifts by a team of eight persons located in the Swanwick Centre. The FMP is
responsible for utilising the ACC capacity within the London, Scottish and Swanwick Oceanic FIRs to the
maximum possible extent.
The FMP and ACC supervisor both monitor workload using the Traffic Load Prediction Device (TLPD). In
the addition to the TLPD, the FMP also uses the Collaborative Human-Machine Interface (CHMI) provided
by the NM and the local meteorological conditions at the various airports potentially affecting capacity.
In case of a predicted over-demand, the FMP approaches Aircraft Operators and provides them with the
opportunity to avoid a tactical regulation by adjusting their flight plans accordingly.
In case flow and capacity interventions cannot be avoided, NATS has a set of STAMs applicable which
includes Mandatory Cherry Picking (MCP), MIT and MDI for the purpose of peak spreading and de-
bunching of outbound traffic.
Responsibilities in tactical air traffic regulations are strongly divided between NATS and the airports in the
London area. In case an airport is not able to handle the declared capacity, such as in case of runway or
taxiway maintenance or severe weather, the airport will communicate this constraint to the FMP. NATS
only takes the initiative to regulate ATC sectors, which by design may contain traffic destined for more
than a single airport. There is no mechanism to prioritise traffic flows with NATS. In this structure, they aim
to maintain a level playing field and allows the NM to regulate in an indiscriminatory way.
4.2 Paris region
4.2.1 Airports
The Paris region consists of two major airports: Paris CDG and Paris Orly. Orly airport accommodates the
domestic flights by Air France and is also the main hub for Transavia France, whereas CDG airport is the
main hub for international Air France flights and is served by members from the alliances Star Alliance,
OneWorld and SkyTeam. Almost all traffic at Orly is point-to-point traffic. Additionally, Le Bourget serves
general aviation traffic. As seen in Figure 13, it is located close to Paris CDG.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 37/88
Figure 13: Main airports in the Paris area
CDG has two pairs of parallel runways. Of each runway pair, one runway is designed for departures and
the other one for arrivals. This efficient design lead to a programming capacity in 2017 of 120 movements
per hour. Orly and Le Bourget have converging and crossing runways. Details can be found in Table 7.
Table 7: Characteristics of main airports of Paris
Main runways Distance from CDG
Paris - CDG 08L/26R, 08R/26L, 09L/27R, 09R/27L -
Paris - Orly 06/24, 08/26, 02/20 20 NM
Paris - Le Bourget 03/21, 07/25, 09/27 5 NM
In terms of air traffic movements, CDG is the biggest airport and Orly comes in second. Together they
serve around 700,000 flights. Details are listed in Table 8. Air traffic at Orly airport is subject to two
regulatory constraints: 250,000 slots for takeoff and landing per year and a daily curfew from 23:30 to 6:00.
Traffic at Le Bourget is subject to a specific night curfew between 22:15 and 6:00, in which takeoffs of jet
aircraft and the use of the second runway by planes of more than 5.7 tons is prohibited.
Table 8: Current traffic figures for Paris [22].
Airport Air Traffic Movements (2018)
Paris - CDG 480,945
Paris - Orly 229,052
Paris - le Bourget 60,325
Total 770,322
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 38/88
4.2.2 Airspace structure
The entire Paris area is covered by the Paris TMA. The TMA structure is indicated in Figure 14. A schematic
of the vertical profile can be seen in Figure 15. The vertical structure of the TMA is sometimes referred to
as an upside-down wedding cake. This TMA shows nine different levels on top of the airport’s control
zone that ends at 2.000 ft. The airspace classification is exclusively A; therefore, no traffic operating under
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) is allowed.
Figure 14: Paris CTR, TMA 7 and IAFs for Paris CDG, Le Bourget and Orly airports
Figure 15: Schematic of airspace structure of Paris [23].
4.2.3 ATC sectors
Paris ACC provides air traffic services within certain parts of the TMA at flight level 115 and above. Paris
CDG APP and Paris Orly APP provide air traffic services within the other parts of the TMA. The northeast
sector of the TMA is controlled by De Gaulle APP, the southwest sector by Orly APP. The diagonal line
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 39/88
between Paris CDG and Orly in Figure 14 indicates the boundary of the respective sectors. There is
permanent radar service for all sectors. Paris CDG, Le Bourget, Paris Orly and Villacoublay (military airbase)
are all located in the Paris CTR which is class D airspace. Pontoise and Melun have a dedicated CTR with a
TMA with class D airspace, where also flights operating under VFR are allowed.
4.2.4 Route design and procedures
The route design for Paris CDG and Orly is separated by design to reduce dependencies and optimise
capacity. Both airports use a similar four corner posts methodology. Paris CDG has four entry TMA entry
points and Orly has three for their arrivals as indicated in Figure 14. These points are located in the corners
of the TMA, departure route will use exit points in between. At each entry point there is a dedicated
holding pattern for Paris CDG /Le Bourget and Orly. Route design is based on RNAV1 principles.
Paris CDG and Le Bourget use two main runway configurations: west and east. Normally, if Paris CDG
changes the runway configuration, Le Bourget will adapt theirs, due to operational dependencies. It only
rarely happens that the two airports operate oppositely, because this will have operational constraints.
Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the main runway configurations and the indicators of the associated
standard instrument departure routes.
Figure 16: Runway configuration west [23].
Figure 17: Runway configuration east [23].
4.2.5 Point-merge concept
In 2013, the point-merge concept was introduced in Paris ACC. It is used to sequence arrivals at the four
IAFs of Paris ACC. Figure 18 shows a specific route design for Paris CDG arrivals using point merge and
Figure 19 depicts the resulting tracks during an inbound peak.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 40/88
Figure 18: Point merge route for Paris CDG [23].
Due to its systematic character, point merge allows for maximization of inbound capacity at an IAF while
allowing the merge of multiple arrival flows. Point merge increases predictability while preserving track
miles and flight time [15]. When considering point merge, or any other path stretching technique, in a
multi-airport concept within Dutch airspace, it is important that it will be used in a planned way or
working and not in a tactical way. The background is that with 3D separated trajectories in the TMA, delay
absorption in the TMA will not be possible any longer. Consequently, arriving flights will have to be
delivered accurately at the TMA entry point, and a planned way of working that combines speed
adjustments and path stretching/shortening is deemed necessary to achieve a high precision at the TMA
entry point in accordance with the AMAN planning.
Figure 19: Point merge in Paris ACC to Paris CDG [12].
To show the airspace dimensions of the Paris TMA and point merge concept relative to the entire Dutch
airspace, Figure 20 was drawn. The map shows the Dutch airspace contours and the four airports involved
in the study. The contour surrounding the airports is a projection of the Paris TMA and the two green pie
tips are the point merge procedures in place for Paris’ airports. What stands out are the relatively large
dimension of the Paris TMA. Combined with point merge procedures, the procedures should immediately
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 41/88
be initiated when entering Dutch airspace. This means that merging should actually be instructed already
outside Dutch airspace by adjacent centres. The point merge procedures in Paris start at a relatively high
flight level, lower flight levels could be more appropriate in Dutch airspace.
4.2.6 European Wake Separation Recategorization (RECAT-EU)
The RECAT-EU system, distinguishing six categories of aircraft according to wake turbulence, is used in the
airspace controlled by De Gaulle APP for the aerodromes of Paris CDG and Le Bourget. With this new
classification, new separation minima based on distances are used for arriving and departing aircraft in
flight.
4.2.7 ATFCM Collaborative Measures
DSNA has taken several ATFCM collaborative measures (which they refer to as “the MAC project”) for Paris
ACC and adjacent Upper Area Control (UAC). The various levels of measures are described in the following
paragraphs.
4.2.8 Pre-tactical: Target Time of Arrival trials (2017 - present)
During the summer of 2017, Target Time of Arrival (TTA) trials were performed in Paris ACC to optimize
arrival times at Paris-Orly airport. From May to October 2018 this was repeated for Paris CDG. DSNA
developed their own experimental tool and interface for XMAN within the Paris region called iAMAN.
Using MCP, the FMP can assign a TTA to a flight. This is then fed to the NM, which calculates the
corresponding CTOT.
From January until June 2019, a new Orly trial phase was initiated. During this trial phase, 81% of the 102
flights with a priority request were adjusted. The trial was during many days not active due to lack of
Figure 20 Paris TMA and point merge projected on Dutch airspace
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 42/88
ATFCM regulations (which is a prerequisite), and technical or meteorological issues. Furthermore, not all
requests could be granted due to too late or incorrect requests or other technical reasons. From August
until September 2019, the Orly trial was expanded with an interface called AFLEX, allowing airlines to set
priorities of their flights via a web portal. AFLEX is basically an improved slot-swap procedure, but with a
lot of added value in terms of directly involving both NM and local ATC. During this trial, only one swap
with another flight and four arrival time improvements were requested. 60% of those requests were fully
or partially accepted.
4.2.9 (Pre-)tactical: Collaborative Advanced Planning (CAP)
Collaborative Advanced Planning (CAP) by DSNA aims to have aircraft operators refile their flight plans
when hotspots are predicted. The CAP web portal is currently used by KLM, Easyjet, British Airways,
Ryanair, Air France, Air Lingus, Vueling, Transavia and others. Besides the AO, German ANSP DFS and
Spanish ANSP ENAIRE are also involved.
In the case of a predicted overload, the flight is listed and highlighted to the FMP. The FMP can provide
route suggestions to the AO directly or via chat functionality. An example suggestion is shown in Figure
21. When the system detects a flight plan is refiled and the foreseen conflict is resolved, the flight will
move to the green table. By encouraging the aircraft operators to proactively refile their flight plans,
regulations by the ANSP may be prevented.
4.3 Main observations
The two large metropole regions of London and Paris have been studied. Both regions show multiple
large airports in close proximity, similar to The Netherlands. On the contrary, airspace structure and route
design are largely different. It has become clear that in the London region, air traffic flows into various
airports are separated from each other in the route design and dedicated altitude window. No particular
coordinated planning among the airport exists. Notwithstanding, the region has mature airspace capacity
management compared to The Netherlands. In the Paris region, both the airspace and route design allow
the larger airports of Paris CDG and Orly to operate almost separately. Also in this region, mechanisms are
Figure 21 Collaborative Advanced Planning by DSNA [33]
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 43/88
in place to better utilise congested airports and airspace. On top of that they use reduced separation
standards.
Most outstanding is that in both regions the complexity of interfering traffic flows in the multi-airport
environment has been avoided by separating route structures, not the focus of this study. By any means,
interesting mechanisms are applied, both metropole regions use cross-border arrival management
concepts including TTA to better plan air traffic flows to and from the airports, which could also be
considered for the future multi-airport environment in the Netherlands.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 44/88
5 Traffic flow analysis
5.1 Introduction
A data analysis has been performed to identify so-called hotspots when looking at traffic flows to and
from four Dutch airports (Schiphol, Eindhoven, Rotterdam and Lelystad). The rationale for the analysis is
the anticipation that the traffic flows from these four airports and its interaction may become problematic
in the future and may necessitate the need for multi-airport measures to mitigate potential traffic flow
issues.
The analysis has looked at three different aspects of the planning and executions of air traffic. Firstly, at a
tactical level based on actual flight data. Secondly, at a pre-tactical level based on flight plan data. Thirdly,
at a strategic level based on schedule data. Access to this data was provided by LVNL.
As baseline the year 2018 was analysed. Thereafter, the analysis was repeated based on traffic growth
estimates for the years 2023 and 2035 were made. Note that the analyses of growth scenarios have a high
level of uncertainty; they strongly depend amongst others on economic growth, political and other
strategic decisions.
5.2 Description of the method to identify hotspots
The method to identify so-called hotspots is based on an analysis of a theoretical remaining capacity
based on gaps in the traffic flows to/from Schiphol in a certain ACC sector and the demand of Eindhoven,
Rotterdam and Lelystad regarding that same sector. If demand exceeds capacity, then we consider it a
hotspot.
Firstly, the traffic flows of Schiphol airport are analysed for each ACC sector, inbounds and outbounds
independently. The traffic flows are based on the actual/planned/scheduled flight data, typically the take-
off and landing times, and information about the sectors that each flight will cross (for schedule and flight
plan data) or has crossed (for actual data). Then for each traffic flow, so per sector and per inbound or
outbound flow, gaps of 4 minutes or more will be identified between consecutive flights in the traffic
flow. If a gap is found then the number of flights that theoretically could be inserted into that traffic flow is
determined, a minimum of 2 minutes3 between flights is used. For example, if a gap of 7 minutes is found,
then 2 flights could be inserted (at +2 and +4 minutes; +6 is not possible anymore because only 1 minute
remains to the aircraft that forms the gap). The number of aircraft that theoretically could be inserted in
the Schiphol traffic flows is called the “remaining capacity”. This is determined for each hour of the day.
Secondly, the traffic “demand” of the three regional airports (Eindhoven, Rotterdam and Lelystad) is
computed for each hour of the day. This demand is the number of flights, either the actual numbers of
2018 or the estimated ones for 2023 and 2035, that constitutes a traffic flow in a specific sector. For
3 The absolute minimum is 60 seconds, which equals a minimum separation distance of 5 NM (in ACC
sectors) divided by 300 knots groundspeed. The 300 knots is based on an average altitude and wind in the
ACC sectors. On top of the minimum value a margin of 60 seconds is added. The 120 seconds result in a
maximum flow capacity of 30 aircraft per hour, which seems reasonable for today’s situation. One could
argue to reduce the margin, for example to half a minute.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 45/88
example, all flights departing from the three airports and flying through sector 2 on the second of July
between 9:00-10:00 Universal Time Coordinated (UTC). Note that crossing traffic is not accounted for, e.g.
inbounds to Eindhoven from the UK crossing inbounds to Schiphol from the south, as the scope of the
study is related capacity surplus of traffic flows and not the capacity surplus of sectors. The latter needs
much more detailed analysis, including controller workload, traffic complexity and so on.
Subsequently, the so-called “capacity surplus” is calculated for each hour and each traffic flow. This is the
difference between the “remaining capacity” (or gaps) and “demand”. Again, this capacity surplus is
related to traffic flows.
Statistics for the capacity surplus are calculated per traffic flow (inbound and outbound flow through
sectors 1 to 5) and per season (summer and winter). The next section presents the results and conclusions
of this analysis based on these statistics, i.e. the 5th percentile, median and 95th percentile of capacity
surplus. The area between the 5th and 95th percentile lines represents capacity surplus in 90% of the time.
And everything below this area represents the capacity surplus in 5% of the time. And everything above
this area also represents the capacity surplus the remaining 5% of the time. In this study, we define that
there is no absence hotspot when a positive capacity surplus exists at least 95% of the time. This means
that hotspot occurs when a part (of the whole) of afore-mentioned area lies below zero, meaning a traffic
flow capacity shortage more than 5% of the time during that time period and season.
Note that the absence of flow issues (i.e. hotspots) does not mean that there is no issue at all in a sector.
There could be issues or hotspots in a sector due to other reasons, for example a very complex traffic
situation may result in controller workload related hotspots and subsequent measures. This study only
considers traffic flow aspects, since going from flows, to routes, to sectors and eventually to controller
workload predictions requires much more analysis including detailed route and sector definitions and a
detailed definition of the controller working methods, which is beyond the scope of this initial study.
The next section presents the results of the analysis of actual flight data. Schedule and flight plan data has
also been looked at in order to see whether traffic flow issues at (certain) ACC sector are already present at
strategic or pre-tactical level. However, due to the nature of the schedule and flight plan data it was not
possible to derive a credible distribution of traffic flows in the ACC sectors. The issue is that multiple
departures from Schiphol are scheduled/planned at the same time. This makes it impossible to easily
allocate realistic take-off times and take-off runways to the departures. The same is true for arrivals at
Schiphol. Consequently, no proper analysis of the schedule and flight plan data could be performed.
5.3 Traffic flow analysis based on actual flight data
5.3.1 Actual demand or number of movements - 2018
The actual amount of traffic to the four airports is presented in the figures below. A distinction is made
between inbound and outbound traffic flows. Ten main flows have been analysed, these correspond to
the inbound and outbound flows in the five Dutch ACC sectors (see Figure 45 in Appendix A 1 ).
The figures present the average number of aircraft flying to or from Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (EHAM),
Eindhoven Airport (EHEH) and Rotterdam-The Hague Airport (EHRD). Lelystad Airport (EHLE) is not
considered as in 2018 the number of commercial air transport movements were still negligible, at least
compared to the other three airports.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 46/88
For the summer period of 2018 (March 25, 2018 through October 27, 2018; 31 weeks) the data is
presented between 04:00-21:00 UTC, i.e. 06:00-23:00 LT.
Figure 22: Mean number of actual movements (called demand) in the Dutch ACC sectors, to and
from EHAM, EHEH and EHRD, during the summer of 2018.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 47/88
As can be seen from the (hourly) average number of movements, the contribution of EHEH and EHRD is
very limited to absent in ACC sectors 1 and 5. There is some traffic to/from EHEH and EHRD in sectors 2
and 4. But most traffic to/from EHEH and EHRD is passing sector 3, the South sector, with some peaks after
opening and prior to the night closure.
Figure 22 also shows that sectors 2 and 3, the East and South sectors, are on average the busiest sectors
regarding traffic flows to/from EHAM. Noteworthy is the single peak in sector 1, at 21:00 UTC, caused by
departing traffic of Schiphol.
For the winter periods of 2018 (January 1, 2018 through March 24, 2018; and October 28, 2018 through
December 31, 2018), the data is presented between 05:00-22:00 UTC, that is 06:00-23:00 LT, see Appendix
B . The winter of 2018 gives a similar trend as the summer. As the summer is the busier season and
therefore the more critical, the summer season is described in detail in the remainder of the document.
The graphs of winter 2018 are included in Appendix B , both figures with the mean demand (as presented
above) and the figures with capacity surplus (as presented in the next paragraph). However, the
conclusions will address both seasons.
5.3.2 Hotspot identification based on actual traffic data
As explained in section 5.2 the method to identify so-called hotspots is based on an analysis of the a
theoretical remaining capacity based on gaps in the traffic flows to/from Schiphol in a certain ACC sector
and the (non-zero) demand of Eindhoven and Rotterdam-The Hague regarding that same sector. The
metric that will be used is the capacity surplus.
The figures below show this capacity surplus during the summer of 2018. As mentioned before, the area
between the 5th and 95th lines represents the capacity surplus in 90 percent of the time during the season
for the given time and traffic flow. And a hotspot is defined when a part (or the whole) of this area is
below zero.
The data is presented for 2018 and two growth scenarios. The number of movements and growth
percentages for the four airports is given in Table 9, the values used in the growth scenarios are based on
input from the DARP (Programma Luchtruimherziening).
It is assumed that the growth at Eindhoven and Rotterdam will follow the current pattern of peaks and
troughs, however this may develop differently. Airline market considerations and/or limitations imposed
by the terminal building or the number of aircraft stands (vliegtuigopstelplaatsen in Dutch) may influence
the growth over the day. And it is assumed that, for now, the traffic flow to/from Lelystad airport is
uniformly distributed over the day. Again, airline market considerations will likely result in a pattern with
peaks and troughs. But for the moment no substantiated assumption on this distribution can be made,
therefore a uniform distribution is assumed. A third assumption is that the traffic flows to/from Lelystad is
distributed over the ACC sectors as follows: 40% flies via sector 2, 40% via sector 3 and the remaining 20%
is distributed over the sectors 1, 4 and 5, this is verified with Programma Luchtruimherziening.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 48/88
Table 9: Number of movements in the reference and two growth scenarios (x1,000)
MAC study Reference
(2018 actuals)
Step 1
(“2023”)
Step 2
(“2035”)
EHAM 500 523 (+4.6%) 625 (+25.0%)
EHEH 37 43 (+16.2%) 51 (+37.8%)
EHRD 18 19 (+5.6%) 23 (+27.8%)
EHLE 0 10 45
5.3.3 ACC sector 1
The inbound and outbound flows in sector 1 were analysed based on actual movements in 2018 and the
two growth scenarios. The gaps in the EHAM flows are compared with the demands of the three other
airports (EHEH, EHLE, and EHRD). Figure 23 shows the results for the summer of 2018, Figure 24 shows the
results of growth scenario 1 and Figure 25 shows the results of growth scenario 2. In general, the lower
the line in the graph, the lower the capacity surplus and (when below zero) the bigger traffic flow issue.
It can be concluded that no hotspots are currently present in sector 1 and will also not develop in growth
scenario 1 (2023). However, in growth scenario 2 (2035) a single hotspot is predicted to occur at 19:00 UTC
for the outbound flow. The main cause of the hotspot is due to the large outbound peak, through sector
1, of departing traffic from Schiphol at that time of the day.
Figure 23: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 1 based on actual 2018 data.
Figure 24: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 1 based on growth scenario 1.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 49/88
Figure 25: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 1 based on growth scenario 2.
5.3.4 ACC sector 2
The inbound and outbound flows in sector 2 have been analysed based on actual movements in 2018 and
the two growth scenarios. The gaps in the EHAM flows are compared with the demands of the three other
airports (EHEH, EHLE, and EHRD). Figure 26 shows the results for the summer of 2018, Figure 27 shows the
results of growth scenario 1 and Figure 28 shows the results of growth scenario 2.
For the outbound flows through sector 2, it can be seen that at 10:00 UTC, 12:00 LT, a hotspot is beginning
to develop. The gaps in the EHAM outbound flow is about equal to the demands of the combined
outbound flows of EHEH and EHRD. For the inbound traffic flows through sector 2, the actual data of 2018
does not show a hotspot.
For growth scenario 1, hotspots are becoming a reality for the outbound traffic flows. And at more periods
of the day the capacity surplus is becoming almost zero, this can be seen in both the inbound and
outbound flow.
For growth scenario 2, the hotspots for the outbound traffic flows are increasing, both in size and in
duration. Hotspots are present during large parts of the day. For growth scenario 2, three hotspots are
predicted for the inbound traffic flow through sector 2.
In summary, there are currently not yet any hotspots in sector 2, but hotspots will develop and become a
reality with the autonomous growth of the airports and without mitigating measures. In particular for the
outbound traffic flows, hotspots may develop during large parts of the day. Similar results are derived for
the winter of 2018, see Appendix B .
Figure 26: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 2 based on actual 2018 data.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 50/88
Figure 27: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 2 based on growth scenario 1.
Figure 28: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 2 based on growth scenario 2.
5.3.5 ACC sector 3
The inbound and outbound flows in sector 3 were analysed based on actual movements in 2018 and the
two growth scenarios. The gaps in the EHAM flows are compared with the demands of the three other
airports (EHEH, EHLE, and EHRD). Figure 29 shows the results for the summer of 2018, Figure 30 shows the
results of growth scenario 1 and Figure 31 shows the results of growth scenario 2.
For the outbound flow through sector 3, it can be seen that at 05:00 UTC, 07:00 LT, a hotspot is present.
The first hour after the daily opening of both EHRD and EHEH the outbound traffic flow, departing via
sector 3, shows a relatively large peak. For the inbound traffic flow through sector 3, the actual data of
2018 indicates that multiple hotspots are present: at 10:00 and11:00 UTC (12:00 and13:00 LT), at 16:00
and17:00 UTC (18:00 and 19:00 LT), and at 20:00 UTC (22:00 LT).
For growth scenario 1, the hotspots are similar to the 2018 situation. It should be noted that in particular
the hotspot in the outbound flow at 5:00 UTC (7:00 LT) increases in magnitude.
For growth scenarios 2, the hotspot in the outbound traffic flow further increases in magnitude and many
new hotspots are estimated to become to develop. Hotspots are now present during large parts of the
day. A similar development is visible for the inbound traffic flows.
In summary, there are currently a couple of isolated hotspots in sector 3. These hotspots are estimated to
grow in magnitude and many new hotspots are estimated to develop, again all under the assumption of
autonomously growth of the airports and the absence of mitigating measures. Inbound and outbound
traffic flows show in a similar development of hotspots, in particular in growth scenario 2 (2035) hotspots
are estimated to be present during large parts of the day.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 51/88
Figure 29: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 3 based on actual 2018 data.
Figure 30: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 3 based on growth scenario 1.
Figure 31: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 3 based on growth scenario 2.
5.3.6 ACC sector 4
The inbound and outbound flows in sector 4 were analysed based on actual movements in 2018 and the
two growth scenarios. The gaps in the EHAM flows are compared with the demands of the three other
airports (EHEH, EHLE, and EHRD). Figure 32 shows the results for the summer of 2018, Figure 33 shows the
results of growth scenario 1 and Figure 34 shows the results of growth scenario 2.
It can be concluded neither that hotspots are currently present in sector 4 nor that they will develop with
the considered growth scenarios.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 52/88
Figure 32: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 4 based on actual 2018 data.
Figure 33: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 4 based on growth scenario 1.
Figure 34: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 4 based on growth scenario 2.
5.3.7 ACC sector 5
The inbound and outbound flows in sector 5 were analysed based on actual movements in 2018 and the
two growth scenarios. The gaps in the EHAM flows are compared with the demands of the three other
airports (EHEH, EHLE, and EHRD). Figure 35 shows the results for the summer of 2018, Figure 36 shows the
results of growth scenario 1 and Figure 37 shows the results of growth scenario 2.
It can be concluded that no hotspots are currently present in sector 5 and it is estimated that they will also
not develop with the considered growth scenarios. It should be noted that during certain times of the day,
there are (almost) no gaps in the EHAM traffic flows. However, the traffic flows to/from the other airports
via sector 5 is (almost) absent. Consequently, no hotspot is present in sector 5 or is estimated to develop
with the growth scenarios.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 53/88
Figure 35: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 5 based on actual 2018 data.
Figure 36: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 5 based on growth scenario 1.
Figure 37: Capacity surplus of traffic flows in sector 5 based on growth scenario 2.
5.4 Summary of results
Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12 provide an overview of the location of hotspots and their development in
future scenarios based on the analysis in the previous paragraphs.
The crosses in the tables mean that hotspots are present or estimated to develop in the traffic flow. The
colour codes indicate whether the hotspot occurs or is predicted to occur during 1-2 hours of the day
(yellow), 3-5 hours of the day (amber) or during large parts of the day (red), see the legend below the
tables.
Clearly, sector 3 is of most concern. Hotspots already exist in sector 3 in the summer period and will
develop during the winter season. Thereafter, in sector 2 hotspots will also develop based on the growth
scenarios. In 2023 still limited, but in 2035 for both inbound and outbound flows and both seasons.
Finally, in sector 1 a specific hotspot is estimated to occur in the 2035 scenario. This is caused by the
departures at Schiphol, which show in a large peak of outbound traffic in sector 1 at 19:00-20:00 UTC (see
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 54/88
also Figure 22). In case of autonomous growth at the four airports and without mitigating measures, it will
result in a localized hotspot in the 2035 scenario.
Table 10: Occurrences of hotspots in 2018 scenario
Summer Winter
Flow 1 Inbound V V
Outbound V V
Flow 2 Inbound V V
Outbound V V
Flow 3 Inbound X V
Outbound X V
Flow 4 Inbound V V
Outbound V V
Flow 5 Inbound V V
Outbound V V
Table 11: Occurrences of hotspots in 2023 growth scenario
Summer Winter
Flow 1 Inbound V V
Outbound V V
Flow 2 Inbound V V
Outbound X V
Flow 3 Inbound X V
Outbound X X
Flow 4 Inbound V V
Outbound V V
Flow 5 Inbound V V
Outbound V V
Table 12: Occurrences of hotspots in 2035 growth scenario
Summer Winter
Flow 1 Inbound V V
Outbound X V
Flow 2 Inbound X X
Outbound X X
Flow 3 Inbound X X
Outbound X X
Flow 4 Inbound V V
Outbound V V
Flow 5 Inbound V V
Outbound V V
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 55/88
Legend
V = capacity surplus during the entire day
X = capacity shortage during 1-2 hours per day
X = capacity shortage during 3-5 hours per day
X = capacity shortage during large parts of the day
5.5 Main observations
In case of autonomous growth at the four airports (Schiphol, Lelystad, Rotterdam and Eindhoven) and no
mitigating measures are being taken to alleviate traffic hotspots, the data analysis of traffic flows to and
from the considered airports shows:
5.5.1 Historical 2018 actual data
There is currently a hotspot In ACC sector 3 in the period 7:00 to 8:00 LT. This coincides with the opening
hour of both Rotterdam-The Hague airport and Eindhoven airport, these airports generate relatively large
outbound peaks after opening at 7:00 LT. Currently there are no hotspots in ACC sectors 1, 2, 4 and 5.
5.5.2 Predicted situation in 2023 and 2035
Hotspots will (further) develop in ACC sectors 1, 2 and 3. With an autonomous growth of the four airports,
traffic flow hotspots will appear during large parts of the day in sectors 2 and 3. No hotspots will develop
in ACC sectors 4 and 5 based on the growth scenarios.
5.5.3 Mitigation measures
In case hotspots are only occurring during certain limited times of the day, multi-airport measures could
be effective to better distribute the capacity surplus over the day. In case hotspots are occurring during
(almost) the entire day (i.e. sector 2 outbounds and sector 3 inbounds and outbound in the 2035 scenario)
then a general capacity issue will develop. Multi-airport measures alone will not be sufficient to address
this issue. Other measures will be needed to generate additional capacity, possibly in combination with
multi-airport measures that redistribute the peaks and troughs in traffic demand in or over the sectors.
The identified hotspots in this chapter together with the research and best practices regarding multi-
airport aspects, as described in Chapters 3 and 4, are the basis of the candidate multi-airport measures in
Chapter 6.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 56/88
6 Potential measures
In this chapter potential measures for the introduction of a Dutch multi-airport concept are described in
more detail. The measures are a result of the analyses performed in previous chapters. Each measure will
be assessed on its potential in Chapter 7. The most promising measures or combination of measures will
be integrated into a high-level concept in chapter 8.
6.1 Coordinated slot allocation
In The Netherlands airport slot allocation is currently a local process, this means there is no coordination
of declared capacity (for example peak hours) between the slot-coordinated airports. By managing the
capacity declarations between the airport involved in the multi-airport concept, as part of the slot
coordination process, the root cause of congestion could be addressed. An example that could be better
managed is the structural congestion of Amsterdam sector 3 between 7:00 and 8:00 LT due to the large
number of departures from Rotterdam, Eindhoven and Schiphol Airport, see Figure 22 in section 5.3.
The slot coordination process could be further optimized by restricting the number of flights to specific
airways at specific timeframes to strategically relieve certain ATC sectors. Local planning and operational
restrictions are already part of the current capacity declarations to ACNL and could be expanded with
restrictions that are derived on a national level.
All stakeholders have an interest into balanced air traffic demand and capacity, on the ground and in air
traffic flows, in order to create stable traffic flows, resilient and robust against disruptions. Stable and
predictable traffic flows eventually allow ANSPs to reduce their buffer capacity, leading to a small increase
of capacity and accommodation for future growth.
Another reason of the traffic imbalance is that monitoring of airport slot utilisation is not actively
performed by the slot coordinator. Whilst airlines will not consequently structurally deviate from their
allocated airport slots, this lack of monitoring could result in increased traffic during peaks. Hence, to
enlarge the effect of coordinated slot allocation, slot monitoring should be improved as well.
6.2 Strategic flight scheduling
Strategic flight scheduling is a technique that schedules flights in such a way that the interference of
flights is reduced. In a far-fetched scenario, flights to the south may be scheduled from a southerly airport
and flights to the north from a northerly airport. In this scenario it could mean that traffic to (from) the
south will mostly depart from (arrive at) Eindhoven and Rotterdam-The Hague airports, whereas traffic to
(from) the north or north-east will mostly depart from (arrive at) Lelystad airport. This scenario will result in
conflicting interests. Airlines business strategies will most likely not support it.
A less far-fetched scenario, as proposed for this measure in this document, is to redistribute the traffic over
the various sectors, therewith reducing the load on specific sectors. For example, flights to (from) South
America or the Canary Islands could always be planned and executed via sector 4, thereby alleviating
sector 3 to a certain extent.
The scheduling of flights via sectors with less or no hotspots could in principle be used in all phases
(strategic, pre-tactical, tactical), though most impact could be anticipated when applied at a strategic
level. This occurs already on European network level in the strategic phase.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 57/88
6.3 National daily ATFCM entity and plan
The current ATFCM plan prepared by LVNL at D-1 aims first and only at Schiphol. A national ATFCM entity
and daily plan is considered a potential evolution where the centre of attention would shift from Schiphol
to at least all four airports involved in the multi-airport concept.
A national air traffic flow and capacity management (ATFCM) entity could support in the balancing of
demand and capacity in the timeframe from a week up to hours before actual operations. An ATFCM
entity could anticipate predictable and unpredictable disruptions by preparing decision information for
its stakeholders. Such ATFCM entity could also coordinate with adjacent ANSP’s and Eurocontrol Network
Manager on situations and conditions. On request it can support airports, airline operators and ATC, whilst
reporting to the Eurocontrol NM and the Civil Aviation Authority.
The national ATFCM entity could also be responsible to establish a national daily ATFCM plan. This plan
can provide a clear overview of the latest information on demand (scheduled flights) and capacity
(weather conditions, special events in airspace, airport availability, planned runway configurations). When
the demand exceeds the available capacity, the entity can decide on pre-tactical regulations. An initial
plan could be prepared from D-7 until D-1 after which it will be officially published.
A fully operating ATFCM entity and daily plan will enhance optimised use of airspace and airport capacity
in the pre-tactical timeframe, especially when predicted or ad hoc disruptions require attention of all
stakeholders. It strongly relies on increased information sharing between the ANSPs handling air traffic at
or over the airports involved. LVNL and the military ANSP will be integrated into a single ANSP by 2023.
This would already allow for better sharing of information on airport operations and airspace booking.
6.4 Runway configuration management
Currently, the runway configuration at Schiphol frequently changes. At Schiphol, bound to environmental
regulations, an average daily number of sixteen runway configuration changes significantly reduces the
predictability of traffic flows, both inbound and outbound. The runway configurations must adhere to
environmental rules such as a preferential runway selection system. Next to this a maximum number of
simultaneous used runways is established by the New Standards and Enforcement System [24]. Also the
other airports involved in the multi-airport concept decide on their runway configuration independently.
This leads to unpredictability of the foreseen multi-airport concept.
The runway configurations of the airports could in the future be coordinated such that the arrival and
departures routes to the airports in the multi-airport concept are more aligned. Rotterdam, Eindhoven
and Lelystad are single runway airports. They decide on their runway configuration based on actual wind
conditions. If wind speed is limited, the interests of the multi-airport environment could influence the
runway configuration selected. This asks for coordination and sharing of information at a pre-tactical and
tactical level between the airports and as a prerequisite an increased planning horizon for the runway
configuration at Schiphol.
Runway configuration management can be made more predictable by shifting to more schedule-based
runway configuration changes rather than a change based on tactical conditions. For AOs, a schedule-
based runway configuration changes at Schiphol compared to current situation where tactical conditions
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 58/88
determine the moment of change, would mean a more predictable and possibly fixed route through the
TMA and hence a more reliable landing time on the runway, and in-block time at the gate
Runway configuration management is positioned as a pre-tactical measure. Improved coordination and
predictability of the runway configurations would make arrival and departure trajectories more
predictable, both lateral and vertical; also enabling other measures establishing a multi-airport
environment.
6.5 STAM
STAM is a demand and capacity balancing procedure which allows FMPs to identify regulation hotspots
and apply measures smoothing sector workload by reducing traffic peaks (SESAR, European ATM Master
Plan: Edition 2015, 2015). It is a collaborative process that aims to involve all stakeholders in order to
ensure that equity is maintained.
Normally ATFCM regulations result in a systematic allocation of departure slots to all flights through the
congested area, regardless of how they contribute to the expected overload. This process is no longer
favourable when the demand does not significantly exceed the available capacity and when traffic can be
predicted in a more refined way. FMPs can play a key role in the reduction of traffic peaks by applying
measures such as assigning minor ground delay, flight level capping or small re-routings.
MUAC FMP has advanced STAM procedures in place for Dutch upper airspace. In lower airspace, LVNL
FMP could develop measures having minimum impacts on airspace users, such as cherry-picking of the
flights causing the complexity, based on expanded information including weather, airport operations,
runway occupancy and traffic complexity. Today already some measures are used by approach air traffic
controllers by coordination with adjacent airports. An example is the Rotterdam runway 06 departures,
which could be held near the runway to avoid interference with Schiphol traffic.
By definition this measure is applied tactically. NM tooling can provide support for STAM. The tooling
allows for hotspot detection, a “what-if” function to assess potential measures and effecting measures.
6.6 Traffic synchronization
ATCO workload is often not only a function of the amount of traffic, but also traffic complexity like
crossing traffic, crossing a busy stream of other traffic. Sometimes, a small adjustment to the departure
time of a single crossing flight may reduce workload below levels where regulations would be required.
An example of such a case is a departure from Eindhoven (EHEH) to the west. A delay of 5 or 10 minutes
for this flight may avoid crossing a group of outbound flights from Schiphol.
To minimize interference, departing traffic can, under certain circumstances, be synchronized with other
traffic flows in the multi-airport environment. This is especially an option for aerodromes where there is
limited outbound demand. Traffic can be designated to take-off within a certain time window, before or
after a certain time. Due to the nature of the departure operation, this would not be possible for Schiphol
as this would affect the required high departure capacity, but would be more suitable for Rotterdam,
Eindhoven and Lelystad. A technological enabler is the Departure Metering project for the London TMA
and the Departure Spacing program in New York-Boston Northeast corridor. This measure for departure at
multiple airports in proximity is also known as DMET.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 59/88
Arriving traffic flows into the multi-airport can likewise be synchronized in such a way that flows into
different airports do not conflict in the sectors but also not compromise the throughput at the largest
airport Schiphol. Well in advance of entering Dutch airspace, potentially even before take-off, aircraft are
assigned a TTA at the destination airport or a TTO an entry point, ensuring a distributed traffic rate into
the airports. TTA/TTO strongly relies on the available arrival management concepts and tooling for multi-
airports.
These techniques can be used in the tactical phase to prevent workload limits to be exceeded. Having this
tactical measure could also be used to allow for a greater design margin when choosing capacity limits on
a strategic level. For instance, the available capacity in a traffic stream is measured in a percentage at
which a certain capacity can be guaranteed. Applying this method could permit choosing a less stringent
percentage at which a competing traffic stream needs to be deconflicted, thereby increasing capacity
levels.
To facilitate this concept element, certain systems support is likely to be required. Accurate trajectory
information on conflicting traffic profiles needs to be available. Also, a conflict detection and resolution
capability could assist the controller/planner in deriving an appropriate time constraint for a departure
from one of the departure restricted airports.
6.7 Sector capacity measures
The data analysis has identified that multi-airport measures only are not sufficient, in particular in the
2035 scenario, hence a number of capacity improvements are suggested below. Note that those measures
cannot be considered to be multi-airport measures, but it was considered useful to mention them.
6.7.1 Introduction of southeast flow
The DARP (Programme Luchtruimherziening) is considering the introduction of a new southeast flow for
civil air transport. A new southeast flow for flights departing Schiphol airport would be positioned in
between the current Schiphol flows to the east in ACC sector 2 and the south in ACC sector 3, crossing the
Amsterdam FIR border south of Eindhoven (BROGY). The location of the current ACC sectors is shown in
Figure 45, in Appendix A 1
This new flow would alleviate outbound demand pressure on the two busiest outbound streams from
Schiphol. Together they make up over 50% of the total traffic. This would not only create new departure
slots for traffic heading in this direction, it is also likely to free up slots in the current sector 2 and 3
outbound flows. This is to be expected as a sizeable portion of the traffic in sectors 2 and 3 is bound for a
destination on this heading (eligible traffic in sector 2: 21%, sector 3: 28%). This measure can be applied
on a strategic and pre-tactical level.
6.7.2 Reduction of minimum radar separation
When it becomes possible to reduce the minimum radar separation outside the TMA to a value of less
than 5 nautical miles, it would be possible to reduce the value as used in the definition of a gap in the
traffic flows to/from Schiphol airport. This would at least theoretically increase the numbers of gaps in the
traffic flows and consequently the number of movements that could operate via all sectors.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 60/88
This measure is to be used at a tactical level. The consequence of reducing the minimum radar separation
in terms of controller workload and acceptance is unknown. New support tools to detect and resolve
conflicts may become necessary. Note that this measure also sets requirements on the surveillance
systems and may require adjustments to the legal framework, therefore it may be a measure for the mid-
term.
6.7.3 Route duplication
Route duplication is a technique in which more than one route connects a sector entry gate (several entry
points instead of one entry point) and a sector exit gate. The new navigation specifications make it
possible to define (parallel) routes more closely together. And when flights are smartly allocated to the 2
or 3 or 4 (parallel) routes, the traffic flow capacity could significantly increase. The use of multiple closely
spaced RNP routes with a common end point (e.g. IAF for arrivals or a coordination point with an adjacent
center for departures) will likely not increase capacity. However, the use of multiple routes in a multi-
airport concept can bring significant capacity benefits, for example closely spaced parallel routes entering
the Dutch airspace that later on split into dedicated routes to the different airports or departures from
different airports coming together not in one single route but in several closely spaced parallel routes
towards multiple (again closely spaced) exit points to adjacent centers.
System support would be needed to allocate flights to the optimal route given its origin and destination
and perhaps even down to the level of allocated take-off/landing runway. The creation of more than one
route, between certain sector entry and exit points, is a design consideration. However, the allocation
process to assign flights to one of the routes is a strategic measure and could be further fine-tuned during
the flight planning phase and on the day of operation.
Issues to consider are the impact on ATCO (working method, system support, workload, complexity of
operations) and the impact on adjacent centers. Instead of one transfer point, a gate with multiple
transfer points will have to be handled and a higher complexity with potentially more traffic crossings
may be the result (i.e. crossings after receiving traffic at the gate or before handing it over at the gate).
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 61/88
7 Assessment of potential multi-airport measures
In this chapter the potential measures as identified Chapter 6 are assessed. The potential multi-airport
measures have been assessed against several performance indicators (PIs) related to traffic flow
characteristics. The performance indicators identified to provide a first impression of the effectiveness of
the multi-airport measures are:
• Sector capacity
• Regulations – it includes both the number of regulations and the duration of regulations.
• Traffic bunches - a traffic bunch occurs when packets of aircraft arrive at the same, unexpected
time, in a congested area
• Traffic flow complexity
• Track miles flown by aircraft
• Resilience – ability of the ATM system to cope with non-nominal conditions. Indicators are loss
of airspace capacity avoided and time to recover from non-nominal to nominal condition.
• Predictability – both the time and vertical aspects are considered.
The table below provides the PI scores of the six multi-airport measures (two strategic, two pre-tactical
and two tactical measures). The scoring is based on engineering judgment of the project team members.
Table 13: Scoring table of the potential multi-airport measures
Strategic Pre-Tactical Tactical
1. C
oo
rdin
ated
slo
t al
loca
tio
n
2. S
trat
eg
ic f
ligh
t sc
hed
ulin
g
3. N
atio
nal
dai
ly A
TFM
e
nti
ty a
nd
pla
n
4. R
un
way
co
nfi
gu
rati
on
m
anag
em
en
t
5. S
TAM
6. T
raff
ic s
ynch
ron
isat
ion
Performance Indicator (PI)
* (+) is less and (-) is more
1. Capacity (Sector) 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. Regulations (number, minutes) *
0 + + 0 ++ +
3. Bunches* + 0 + 0 + ++
4. Traffic flow complexity* 0 + + ++ 0 +
5. Track miles* + - 0 + 0 0
6. Resilience (% loss of airspace capacity avoided)
+ + + + 0 0
7. Predictability (time) + + + + + ++
8. Predictability (vertical path) 0 0 0 + 0 0
Overall score (“+” adds one,” 0” adds nothing, “-“ subtracts one
4 3 5 6 4 6
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 62/88
Scoring legend
++ significantly positive
+ slightly positive
0 neutral
- slightly negative
-- significantly negative
It can be concluded that all measures have certain benefits. The measures are typically having a different
impact on specific PIs. No two measures have the same impact on the PIs, though the two strategic
measures are most common. It is argued that no obvious duplication is present; therefore each measure
seems to be beneficial in itself. Furthermore, none of the measures has an overall negative score when
considering all PIs for that measure. It is therefore recommended to proceed (for the time being) with all
potential multi-airport measures in Chapter 8, the high-level concept description.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 63/88
8 High-level concept
In this chapter a proposal for the multi-airport concept for the Netherlands is provided. This CONOPS
provides a high-level description of the operational use of the most promising measures from a user point
of view for the time period 2023 up to 2035.
8.1 Assumptions and conditions
8.1.1 International regulations
Applicable EU regulations following from the Single European Sky Research Programme (SESAR) like the
PCP [25, 12, 13, 11] are governing further developments. This also applies to other relevant EU regulations
[26, 27, 28]. Together they prescribe the technical enablers and conceptual procedures that must be
adhered to. This concept assumes the following PCP defined ATM Functionalities:
1. Extended AMAN and Performance Based Navigation in the High-Density TMAs
2. Airport Integration and Throughput
3. Flexible Airspace Management and Free Route
4. Network Collaborative Management
5. Initial System Wide Information Management
6. Initial Trajectory Information Sharing
8.1.2 European ATM Masterplan
The SESAR programme, in cooperation with their United States counterpart NextGen, as well as global
authorities such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Air Transport
Association (IATA), Airports Council International (ACI) and Civil Air Navigation Services Organization
(CANSO), prepares for and is in the deployment of transitioning towards harmonized operations that are
more based on operational performance. For that reason, Performance Based Operations (PBO) is
identified and assumed as the most significant trend to adhere to.
8.1.3 Dutch aviation vision (Luchtvaartnota)
The Netherlands is preparing its vision on aviation for the time period up to 2050. This vision, called the
Luchtvaartnota, will be the foundation for the aviation policy and implementation agenda in the
upcoming decades. The draft vision was expected late 2019, but has not been published up to date and
thus cannot be assumed yet.
8.1.4 Civil military integration (1ATM)
The Netherlands is in a transition to integrate civil and military ATC into a single ANSP. From 2017 the civil
and military ANSPs have been co-located. Currently the civil and military concepts of operation are being
aligned in order to integrate into a single ANSP with a single ATC staff by 2023. For this concept it is
assumed that this integration is completed.
8.1.5 Dutch airspace redesign (Programma Luchtruimherziening)
This Multi Airport concept is developed in parallel to the DARP. Therefore, it is not possible to incorporate
all design considerations from the programme as the programme is still ongoing. It is agreed that the
concept is limited to the level of traffic flows to and from the airports involved. At a certain moment the
programme can elaborate traffic flows into route, sector and airspace design.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 64/88
Although this concept does not refer to content of the airspace redesign program, it does refer to its
objectives and requirements documented in Notitie Reikwijdte en Detailniveau [29]
Airspace users and their needs accumulated by the airspace redesign programme are listed in the
Integrale behoeftestelling herziening luchtruim [30]. It can be assumed that those needs are relevant to this
concept as well.
It is assumed that it will be fundamental to shift towards a planned way or working and to generally
abandon the current highly tactical way of working. The background is that with a feasible degree of 3D
procedural de-confliction in the TMA, supplemented by other elements like for instance traffic
synchronisation, based on RNP (e.g. RNP1 or RNP0.3) and potentially a best equipped-best served
principle to support and optimise the vertical flow of traffic, a systematic absorption of delays will not be
possible inside the TMA any longer. Consequently, arriving flights will have to be delivered precisely and
consistently at the TMA entry point and a planned way of working that combines speed adjustments and
path stretching/shortening in ACC and UAC airspace is deemed necessary to consistently achieve a high
precision at the TMA entry point to support the arrival management process in such an environment.
8.1.6 Air traffic numbers
From EUROCONTROL European aviation in 2040: challenges of growth [31], a 1.5% annual air traffic
increase is forecasted for The Netherlands for the years up to 2040. This percentage is based on a baseline
situation in 2018. This percentage applies to both terminal and en-route traffic.
8.2 Problem statement
The study results of the current situation and growth scenarios expose the following problems:
• ATFCM is not yet organised at national level, it is strongly focussed at Schiphol;
• Airport slot allocation and runway configuration are performed independently, not taking into
account other airports in close proximity;
• There is no mechanism to minimise interaction between departure flows from the involved
airports heading to the same airways;
• Arrival and departure traffic of Rotterdam and Eindhoven airports interfering in lower airspace
with Schiphol traffic is managed tactically only;
• When no mitigation measures are taken, the expected traffic numbers in 2023 are predicted to
exceed sector capacities in ACC sector 2 and 3 multiple times a day, while the numbers in 2035
are predicted to exceed these sector capacities almost continuously.
Figure 38 visualises the inbound and outbound flight trajectories for Schiphol (blue inbound, green
outbound), Rotterdam (orange inbound, red outbound) and Eindhoven (purple inbound, yellow
outbound), for a period in 2019 of several hours with one runway configuration per airport. It
demonstrates the current use of Dutch airspace and adjacent airspace of the United Kingdom, Germany
and Belgium. As Lelystad is not open to commercial air traffic yet, its trajectories are not shown. As can be
seen, the traffic flows spread widely from all three airports, covering a large part of Dutch airspace.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 65/88
Figure 38: Inbound-outbound flight trajectories Schiphol, Rotterdam and Eindhoven, 2019
8.3 Concept description
With the expected growth of air traffic over Europe, technical deployments enforced by regulation and
the user needs accumulated by the national airspace redesign programme, a new concept for the optimal
utilisation of the limited airspace enclosing the multiple airports in close proximity is desired. An
implementation of this concept with enhanced flight scheduling and ATFCM for Schiphol, Rotterdam,
Eindhoven and Lelystad Airport can support in achieving the global objectives of the airspace redesign in
the time period from 2023 up to 2035.
The assessment in Chapter 7 showed six measures that are candidate for a multi-airport concept. The
measures, listed in Table 14, are categorized based on the timeframe the measure can be applied.
Strategic measures can be applied from a year up to a week before operation. Pre-tactical measures take
place between a week and a day before operations. The day of operation is considered the tactical
timeframe.
Table 14 : Potential flight scheduling and ATFCM measure per planning timeframe
Nr. Measure Planning timeframe
1 Coordinated slot allocation Strategic
2 Strategic flight scheduling Strategic
3 National daily ATFCM plan (Pre-)tactical
4 Runway configuration management Tactical
5 Traffic synchronization Tactical
6 STAM Tactical
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 66/88
In Figure 39 the flight scheduling and ATFCM measures are visualised on a timeline indicating the
mentioned planning timeframes.
Figure 39: Measures placed in planning timeframe
Next the ATFCM measures are elaborated for the Dutch operational environment where costs and
benefits will again be addressed. The description includes an estimated timeline for implementation. As
the descriptions are rather abstract and in limited detail there are no requirements derived from them.
Notwithstanding a summary of impacts is described in Section 8.5.
8.3.1 Strategic phase
Air traffic demand and capacity imbalances are the consequence of assigned airport slots that match with
local airport capacity, but altogether exceed the declared capacity in airspace. Traffic flow imbalances
occur primarily due to uncoordinated demand between the slot coordinated airports, causing traffic
peaks, or bunches, in the inbound and outbound flows from and to TMA and ACC sectors, as well as
MUAC. The main consequences are increased controller workload due to excessive radar vectoring and
moreover flight delays.
Improvement of the air traffic demand and capacity balance within Dutch airspace and its airports can be
achieved by reorganising strategic airport slot allocation for all involved airports together, rather than the
individual processes for each airport. Airport slots for flights with destinations along the same airway need
to be distributed in time where the demand meets the flow and sector capacity. After rebalancing the use
of airspace by redistributing the available airport slots for all four airports, regulation needs to be refined
to monitor slot compliance by airspace users. Market valuation and stakeholder incentivisation can
contribute to this compliance.
Compliance of airport slots can be achieved by structural verification of flight schedules and flight plans
with the assigned airport slots. Technical enablers are already becoming mandatory in the European
Union, and most stakeholders are equipped or ready to validate new concepts, procedures and technical
support. The tolerances on airport slot deviations can be agreed upon between all stakeholders, yet may
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 67/88
be significantly reduced compared to present day values. Performance monitoring needs to be developed
in order to periodically evaluate each airspace user.
Market incentives can be used to differentiate for airport slots in high or low demand. Incentives must also
be considered as enabler for stakeholders that perform in compliance with the regulations. Performance
indicators on stakeholder compliance and adherence to planning should contribute to changed
behaviour.
Strategic planning improvements such as coordinated airport slot allocation and flight schedule
compliance are expected to have significant impact to a more balanced use of airports and airspace, as all
resources are more evenly utilized causing less inflictions to capacity. These measures require political
agreement amongst stakeholders, enhanced performance monitoring based on existing parameters. No
major new technology is required, allowing for a relatively short timeframe to implement these measures.
8.3.2 Pre-tactical phase
Disruptions can either be predictable or unpredictable, yet they require enhanced anticipation and
resilience to assess impact on the use of airspace and ground resources, including traffic flows and airport
capacity. At local level an APOC may be able to predict the change in demand through an AOP and in the
network the NM establishes a Network Operations Plan (NOP). After all at national level there is currently
no entity nor plan that balances traffic demand and capacity earlier than at the day of operations. There is
a need for enhanced collaborative decision making in the pre-tactical timeframe to anticipate and sustain
air traffic operations.
A national ATFCM entity could anticipate on predicted and respond to unpredicted disruptions by
preparing decision information for its stakeholders. Such an ATFCM entity could also coordinate with
adjacent ANSP’s and the NM on situations and conditions. Moreover, it can continuously support airports,
AOs and ANSPs with the latest predictions, whilst reporting to the NM and the CAA.
Thorough post-operational analysis after the day of operation, can provide a baseline for a national
ATFCM plan for next year’s operation. This baseline plan drafted by the entity can already include
preliminary traffic forecasts, planned events and ATCO duty rostering. Traffic forecasts are in the
Figure 40: Elements in a national daily ATFCM plan
Meteorological information
Military airspace Civil special events
Schiphol APOCRotterdam,
Eindhoven and Lelystad Airport
Network Manager
Sector configuration and capacity
Maintenance NOTAM
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 68/88
meantime finetuned with the support of data analyses. Likewise, duty rosters are detailed by the rostering
bureau. Planned events such as national events, air shows or military exercises are carefully collected in an
agenda. The impact of these events on demand or capacity is assessed by the entity itself. Figure 40
presents a list of potential elements that can become part of the daily plan.
Between D-7 to D-1, the latest traffic predictions, the latest weather forecasts and the latest military
airspace bookings can be added to the plan in more detail. The entity can then turn this information into
expected runway configuration at the airports and a sector opening scheme at the ANSPs. Also, they
advise on the need for pre-tactical ATFCM measures when demand is expected to exceed the available
capacity. The plan could at several moments in advance of D-1 be already shared with the stakeholders.
The plan shall be officially published at D-1 the latest.
The creation of an ATFCM entity and plan may require cooperation and approval from the CAA, as well as
enablers to facilitate the need for forecasts and information, including performance monitoring and
dashboard functions. ATFCM highly depends on ATM functions already present within the ANSPs, but also
requires an interface with the AOP and NOP. It is essential that this will be developed in line with the NM
vision on AOP and NOP [32]. Figure 41 shows the interaction between APOC, ATFCM entity and NMOC.
Figure 41: Place of the national ATFCM entity in context of APOC and NMOC
8.3.3 Tactical phase
Runway configuration management
Runway configuration management can be made more predictable by shifting to more time-based
runway configuration changes rather than changes based on tactical conditions. For AOs, a time-based
runway configuration changes at Schiphol compared to current situation where tactical conditions
determine the moment of change, would mean a more predictable and possibly fixed route through the
TMA and hence a more reliable landing time on the runway, and in-block time at the gate. It also allows
for better prediction of the vertical flight path of arrivals, increasing the performance of other tactical
measures like traffic synchronisation and STAM. The increased predictability could eventually allow for a
reduction in flight schedule buffers at AOs and sector capacity buffers at ANSPs, improving the resource
utilisation at both AO and ANSPs. This may help compensate for the compromised throughput during
high demand.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 69/88
For ANSPs this would impact the current working method. It shifts from the flexibility of radar vectoring
and runway configuration changes maximising throughput into stable and predictable flows to the
runways. This increased predictability could nevertheless affect throughput during high demand or in
rapidly changing weather conditions. Potential mitigation measures for this lower throughput could be
technological innovations like time-based separation and/or RECAT-EU.
Coordinated and schedule-based runway configuration changes by collaboration of multiple stakeholders
from all airports could reduce the ATCO workload and increase predictability for AOs.
STAM
STAM are taken in the phase where flights can still be influenced by measures that impact on the flight
planning or trajectory. The measures also aim to avoid congestion in airspace or at airports but at the
same time having minimum impact on airspace users.
The FMP could apply measures having minimum impacts on airspace users, such as MCP of flights causing
the complexity, based on expanded information including weather, airport operations, runway occupancy
and traffic complexity. Possible measures include the allocation of minor ground delays to specific flights
and flight level reassignments or route changes negotiated with airspace users.
These measures can also be prepared beforehand and coordinated with adjacent centres in so-called
scenarios. These scenarios can then easily be implemented when the traffic situation demands.
A typical scenario could be to temporary assign flight level caps to short distance flights to avoid
interference. Another scenario could be to temporary reroute flights in southern direction from sector 3 to
4 or eastern direction from 2 to 1. NM tooling can provide support for STAM. The tooling allows for
hotspot detection, a “what-if” function to assess potential measures and effecting measures.
Traffic synchronisation
Traffic synchronisation aims to avoid congestion in airspace or at airports and preserve ATCO workload.
For the departure phase, flights in the multi-airport environment to the same merge or exit points can be
automatically planned by applying the DMET concept. Flights originally conflicting at merge or exit
points, can be assigned a minimal ground delay so that demand and capacity in a specific time bracket is
balanced again. Pre-requisite for the implementation of DMET is A-CDM. A-CDM is a concept applied at
Schiphol airport and currently 40+ airports throughout the European network. It enables predictability for
departures at an airport. When multiple airports apply this concept, its departures can be coordinated
through pre-departure sequencing mechanisms.
Point of attention is that where airports are situated close to each other, the effect of traffic
synchronisation is limited caused by the variety in actual departure times (CTOT adherence -5 / +10
minutes) resulting in traffic situations that simply can’t be planned in advance for this reason. Improved
adherence to a reduced tolerance window shall be a prerequisite for this measure to be effective.
For the arrival phase, flights in the multi-airport environment to any of the airports involved can be
systematically synchronized by applying the TTO concept. It can support coordination of traffic flows into
multiple airports in the same vicinity to enable a more accurate delivery to the runways and enable the
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 70/88
controller to manage the interaction of flows in an efficient way without overload situations. A TTO and
ultimately a TTA can be assigned prior or during the flight with support of the NM. A TTO is the target time
at FIR or TMA entry point while a TTA is the target time at a runway of the destination airport. The actual
flight plans are calculated based on the TTA/TTO and both ANSP and AO are required to adhere to these
times.
The implementation would require AMAN at the airports involved. It also needs an additional arrival
planning component CMAN which accompanies the AMANs of the airports. The CMAN generates a
combined planning for several arrival flows into different airports by calculating the sequence of aircraft
flying towards a sector or TMA where their routes intersect. By imposing an adequate spacing of the
aircraft in that area, a TTL for the appropriate upstream sector is calculated to meet this constraint. The
ATCO in the upstream sector will be presented with the superimposed TTL and required sped from the
AMAN and the CMAN. The CMAN aims to increase efficiency, enhance predictability, and timely avoidance
of traffic bunching in the airspace sectors.
Point of attention is that AMAN and CMAN do not take conflicts between inbound and outbound traffic
into account. These conflicts can require tactical actions by the ATCO (flight level changes, route
deviation) during actual operations, possibly threatening TTAs.
8.4 Operational scenarios
The two operational scenarios in this section provide a high-level introduction to how the concept
elements can support in actual situations.
8.4.1 Normal operations
This scenario describes a rather normal day of operations in the airspace over The Netherlands in 2035. It
is meant to give an introduction of the strategic measures only.
In the strategic domain airport slots are already coordinated within the multi-airport environment.
Furthermore, the airport slots have a reduced time window in which the flight plan is destined to start or
end. Airport slots for flights in specific directions have been coordinated with airport slots at the other
airports involved. With respect for historical rights, traffic from the largest airport Schiphol still shows
waves of long-haul aircraft operations from and to certain directions such as North and South America or
Asia-Pacific. However, there is also airspace capacity planned for flights at the other airports involved.
With ACNL actively monitoring AO performance, the flexibility in flight planning is significantly reduced.
To compensate, new concepts such as User-Driven Prioritisation Process (UDPP) and airport slot swapping
allow AOs to maintain their business model where flights of economic value have priority over other
flights within their schedule.
Because of improved adherence of flight scheduling, more resilience is built within the daily airport
capacity and demand planning. Capacity buffers are spread throughout the day, different from the year
2020 where these so-called fire breaks are planned in between traffic peaks.
Distributing airport slots and flight plans not only at the saturated airport Schiphol, but also over
Eindhoven, Rotterdam and Lelystad, has the effect that in nominal scenarios the airspace demand will be
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 71/88
more evenly spread, and traffic flows are increasingly stable towards and from all major directions,
creating spare capacity to accommodate flight deviations or unpredicted disruptions. Resilience and
robustness are a major gain resulting in less unpredicted flight deviations or cancellations.
By design, and as direct consequence of more balanced airline schedules in adherence to airport slots, this
planned distribution of traffic will result in better airline punctuality and less delays, because the actual
flight operation closer approximates flight plan and schedule.
8.4.2 Forecasted western storm
This scenario describes a typical western storm in January passing over The Netherlands in 2035, which is
forecasted some days in advance. With its severe wind speeds and gusts, it impacts air traffic for between
4 and 8 hours in the early morning and afternoon and reduces capacity significantly. The focus in this
scenario is on the pre-tactical and tactical measures.
In the pre-tactical domain weather forecast are reviewed daily in the national ATFCM cell, and refined
predictions of the duration, location and impact of the storm are shared as the national daily ATFCM plan
amongst stakeholders of all airports, including Schiphol APOC. At the peak of the storm, strong gusts limit
the runway configuration at Schiphol to runway 27 only, for a maximum of 2 hours. Mixed mode
operations are anticipated. Prior and after that also runway 24 is available, increasing capacity for
departures and arrivals, between 2-4 hours.
Schiphol APOC, the national ATFCM cell and the NM continuously share updated information on the
airport operations, providing situational awareness to all stakeholders through use of one platform, which
is also available to Eindhoven, Rotterdam and Lelystad. These predictions are input for resource
management at the airport and ANSP. The AO uses the information to ultimately decide on flight
rescheduling and cancellations, as well as passenger stay-overs. Flights without transfer passengers are
pro-actively rescheduled from Schiphol to other airports like Eindhoven and Lelystad, so that these flights
can still be operated at the scheduled date. Frequent train connections will bring passengers to their
destination conveniently. AO also anticipate by rebooking passengers to other flights, minimizing
stayovers. Airports prepare for large passenger volumes and delayed flights. Actual diversions, delays and
knock-on effects are minimized due to frequent involvement of all actors in early phases.
After all the storm requires AOs to cancel 10% of the scheduled flights in advance, spread through the
most certain period of the storm as confirmed by the meteorological service provider. A national rule
determines which AOs needs to cancel flights proportionally at all airports involved. Schiphol is affected
the most as it handles the largest number of flights.
In the tactical domain the ATC supervisors and airport authorities are determining whether runway
configurations can be used as predicted, or different runway configurations are needed. Runway capacity
determines the ground delay. A larger runway threshold departure buffer is foreseen during mixed mode
operations on runway 27, in order to achieve maximum throughput during the peak of the storm.
The inbound flights are heavily regulated and receive a TTA, generated by the AMAN, which clearly
reflects the reduced inbound capacity during the storm. In the Amsterdam FIR fixed arrival flights
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 72/88
combined with Interval Management (IM) can sustain continuous descent approaches, although on
occasion flight crews request, and ATCOs facilitate, radar vectoring approaches.
Runway capacity is the bottleneck during the storm, tactical tooling for DMET and traffic synchronisation
are less critical. There is at this moment hardly interference between the operations at Schiphol,
Rotterdam, Eindhoven and Lelystad.
With limited runways available and mixed mode operations sustaining throughput is of essence. Because
of reduced inbound rates, fixed approach routes with continuous descent approaches remain possible in
the airspace. The combination of optimising throughput with predictable arrivals during a severe storm
also enables predictable departure rates, and hence a limited yet stable operations.
When the storm starts decreasing, a gradual recovery of runway capacity is planned. Assuming the
regional airports were also regulated, the arrival flow rates into Schiphol can be increased until the
declared airspace capacity. A-CDM procedures in combination with DMET, grounded aircraft are being
push-backed at increasing rates, filling the cleared airspace and recovering the flight schedules
throughout the evening.
8.4.3 Traffic flow disruption caused by network regulations
This scenario describes a rather normal day of operations in the airspace over The Netherlands in 2035.
During the day of operations the operation at Eindhoven and Rotterdam was disrupted for a short period
of time and is now recovering. The focus in this scenario is on tactical measures only.
Rotterdam and Eindhoven feed most of their departures into the southbound departure flows which are
during daytime usually already saturated with traffic from Schiphol and Lelystad. To minimise executive
workload for ATCO, traffic synchronisation is a mechanism which calculates the demand on the exit
points. The purpose of this pre-departure tooling is to avoid outbound traffic bunches at TMA or FIR exit
points.
For departures DMET technology intends to achieve a traffic rate over a dedicated waypoint taking into
account aircraft performance. It computes expected TTO this waypoint to determine revised TTOT at the
ground. As a result of the calculation Eindhoven and Rotterdam departures will receive small ground
delays in order to merge into the southern traffic route at a time where some capacity is available.
When applied in the timeframe in the last two hours before off-block time, DMET can be considered a
tactical measure. Whether applied by area controllers in coordination with approach controllers, or
automated by technical enablers, the effect remains to avoid excessive radar vectoring and an efficient
flight path.
Eindhoven departure synchronization
Figure 42 shows an example of ground delay appointed to a departure from Eindhoven intending to
merge into an outbound flow from Schiphol. DMET assigns the Eindhoven departure with a small ground
delay in order to have the flight enter the airway separated from the flight right before. This ground delay
needs to have a significantly smaller tolerance window in order to ensure a smooth synchronisation. In
contrast, the ATFM CTOT tolerance windows (-5, +10 min) would be ineffective for traffic synchronisation.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 73/88
Figure 42: Departure from EIN synchronizing with AMS outbound flow
Rotterdam departure synchronization
Another example of traffic synchronization is presented in Figure 43 for a Rotterdam departure taking off
in northern direction from runway 06, intending to merge with a southbound departure flow from
Schiphol. A minor DMET assigned ground delay could be beneficial for the flight path of the Rotterdam
departure, whilst minimizing the additional workload for the approach controllers.
These measures require a granularity which currently exceeds the possibilities for the NM to apply for
regulations by means of CTOT. Yet these measures are helpful when collaborate decisions are made on
common situational awareness of the departure planning and impact on traffic flows.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 74/88
Figure 43: Departure from RTM synchronizing with AMS outbound flow
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 75/88
8.5 Summary of impacts
The following table provides an overview of the impact the individual measures as part of the high-level
concept have at an organisational, technical and procedural level.
Table 15: Summary of impacts
Nr. Measure Organisational Technical Procedural
1 Coordinated slot allocation Key is agreement among stakeholders;
Legal framework may need adjustments
Limited UDPP for AO
2 Strategic flight scheduling No impact No impact Limited
3 National daily ATFCM entity and plan
ATFCM entity needs to be initiated
Limited ATFCM plan process needs to be designed
4 Runway configuration management
ATCO training is required for tower/approach controllers
Limited Medium impact on ATCO procedures
5 Traffic synchronization ATCO training is required for all controllers
Complete implementation requires large system support:
A-CDM,
DMET,
XMAN,
CMAN
Medium impact on ATCO procedures
6 STAM FMP should be trained on STAM
Already available Small impact on FMP procedures
8.6 Potential implementation timeline
The various concept measures have different implementation timelines based on feasibility and required
preparations. Also they can be categorized on impact on resource Demand and Capacity Balancing, or
Predictability and Efficiency for operations. Figure 44 shows the measures on a timeline within the time
period from 2023 up to 2035. It should be highlighted that traffic synchronisation can follow a gradual
implementation. Full implementation of this measure may require large system support. Nevertheless by
starting with the implementation of A-CDM on the regional airports followed by the implementation of
DMAN before CMAN, each step can already yield gains in predictability,
Figure 44: Potential implementation timeline for measures
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 76/88
9 Conclusions and recommendations
This chapter describes the conclusions that can be drawn from this study into a multi-airport environment
for The Netherlands. The conclusion come along with recommendations.
9.1 Conclusions
One of the project goals was to study options of flight scheduling and integral ATFCM for the Dutch
airports of Schiphol, Rotterdam, Lelystad and Eindhoven. Although ATFCM over multiple airports may be
missing in Dutch airspace, the study showed that LVNL and the Dutch Air Force already have several
mechanisms in place to control flows and manage airspace capacity.
The study also explored multi-airport enabling technologies resulting from Eurocontrol and SESAR
research programmes. For comparison, an overview of airspace, sector, route design and more specifically
ATFCM around airports in the London and Paris region is provided.
Besides the qualitative research, air traffic flows around the Dutch airports were studied quantitatively.
The method to identify so-called hotspots was based on an analysis of a theoretical remaining capacity
based on gaps in the traffic flows to/from Schiphol in a certain ATC sector and the demand of Lelystad,
Eindhoven and Rotterdam regarding that same sector. In actual flight data of 2018, a hotspot in
Amsterdam ACC sector 3 is identified that coincides with the opening times at Eindhoven and Rotterdam
in the early morning. With the predicted demand in 2023 and 2035, hotspots will (further) develop in
sectors 1, 2 and 3. With an autonomous growth of the four airports, traffic flow hotspots will appear
during large parts of the day in sectors 2 and 3. No hotspots will develop in sectors 4 and 5 based on the
growth scenarios.
In case hotspots are only occurring during certain limited times of the day, multi-airport measures could
be effective to better distribute the capacity surplus over the day. In case hotspots are occurring during
(almost) the entire day (sector 2 departures and sector 3 arrivals and departures in 2035) then a general
capacity issue will develop. Multi-airport measures alone will not be sufficient to address this issue; other
measures will be needed to generate additional capacity.
The study identified and assessed six multi-airport measures in the strategic, pre-tactical and tactical
domain. These measures were integrated into a high-level concept of a multi-airport environment that
can improve the management of traffic flows in the Dutch airspace from 2023. Coordinated slot allocation
and strategic flight scheduling are measures that can lead to a more robust and resilient airspace
utilisation. A national daily ATFCM entity and plan can improve situational awareness of all operational
stakeholders by sharing information already at the pre-tactical level. To support the effect of tactical
measures, improved runway configuration management for all airports is a precondition. At the tactical
level, technology supporting the traffic synchronisation of arrivals and departures of arrivals and
departures as well as STAM, can strongly increase predictability of flights and can support managing air
traffic controller workload. Enhanced predictability can generate significant benefits through reducing
sector and flight schedule buffers, however this still needs to be assessed against reduced airline
flexibility. Airline-driven priority processes and tools can largely mitigate for a potential loss of flexibility.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 77/88
9.2 Recommendations
The area of interest in the study was on strategic flight scheduling and ATFCM. The quantitative research
on hotspots in Dutch airspace showed that with the predicted demand in 2035 there would be hotspots
(almost) the entire day in what is nowadays called ACC sector 2 and 3. Recalling from the conclusions, only
measures within the domain of the study would no longer be sufficient and capacity improvements are
needed.
The introduction of a southeast traffic flow seems to be an adequate measure to increase route capacity
and to relieve current ACC sectors 2 and 3. This supports the strategy the DARP is following by moving
military training areas elsewhere. Another measure that was identified and could be considered is
reducing separation standards, this could slightly increase capacity without impact on the route design,
particularly in a multi-airport concept with flows to mixed destinations. However, there may be training or
new support tools involved. Lastly, new navigation specifications make it possible to define (parallel)
routes more closely together. When flights are smartly allocated to the two, three or four (parallel) routes,
the route capacity could be significantly increased. Note that the use of closely spaced (parallel or near
parallel) RNP routes with a common end point (e.g. IAF for arrivals or a coordination point with an
adjacent center for departures) will likely not increase capacity. However, the use of closely spaced parallel
routes in a multi-airport concept can bring capacity benefits. This may also involve support tools and
commitment of adjacent centers is key.
In the introduction the principle was explained that traffic flows should be analysed before the route
design and that airspace boundaries are the aftereffect. The study analysed traffic flows and made
recommendations for the route design. For the definition of airspace boundaries, it is recommended to
primarily consider the protection of the route design and the segregation between types of service
provision. Types of service provision refers to different types of air traffic (civil/military), flight rules
(VFR/IFR) or ATC unit (approach control/area control/adjacent centre).
On top of the suggested measures enhancing predictability, fixed arrival routes are considered a further
enhancement of predictability. Probably the technology of IM is needed to sustain current runway
capacity. Radar vectoring shall still act as fallback for the fixed arrival routes.
When the stakeholders decide that more coordination between the Dutch airports will become necessary,
contrary to or in addition to separating route structures (as in London and Paris), it is recommended to
study the six multi-airport measures in more detail and to update and refine the measures itself and high-
level concept with the results of those studies, thereby providing a detailed CONOPS.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 78/88
10 Bibliography
[1] Lelystad Airport, “Official website Lelystad Airport,” 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.lelystadairport.nl/en/future. [Accessed 2019].
[2] Centraal Bureau der Statistiek, “Luchtvaart maandcijfers Nederlandse luchthavens van nationaal
belang,” 2020. [Online].
[3] Royal Schiphol Group, “Addendum capacity declaration Amsterdam Airport Schiphol; summer 2019,”
2018.
[4] Eindhoven Airport, “Capacity declaration Eindhoven Airport; IATA Summer season 2019,” 2018.
[5] Rotterdam-The Hague Airport, “Capacity declaration Rotterdam The Hague Airport; summer 2019,”
27 9 2018. [Online]. Available: https://slotcoordination.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Capacity-
declaration-Rotterdam-The-Hague-Airport-W1920.pdf.
[6] Eurocontrol, “NM annual network report 2018”.
[7] Eurocontrol, “Maastricht Upper Area Control,” 2020. [Online]. Available: http://www.eurocontrol.int.
[8] LVNL, “Project plan D-1,” 2018.
[9] LVNL, “Operations Manual,” 2019.
[10] Eurocontrol, “Factsheet: Integrated flow management position,” 2027.
[11] SESAR Deployment Program (Edition 2017) – Deployment Manager.
[12] SESAR. (2019). SESAR Solutions Catalogue 2019.
[13] SESAR. (2019). European ATM Master Plan: Progress Report 2019.
[14] SESAR, “European ATM Master Plan: Edition 2015”.
[15] SESAR, “Operational Service and Environment Definition (OSED) for Point Merge in Complex,” 2012.
[16] SESAR, “Step 1 Final SPR: Co-Operative Planning in the TMA,” 2016.
[17] Eurocontrol, “Avoiding Bunching through Departure Metering,” 2008. [Online]. Available:
https://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/public/standard_page/EEC_News_2008_2_DM.html.
[18] FAA, “Community Involvement,” 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/community_involvement/.
[19] LVNL, “Rapport initiatieffase Capacity Management,” 2018.
[20] UK CAA, “Economic licensing and price control,” [Online]. Available:
https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Airports/Economic-regulation/Licensing-and-price-
control/Economic-licensing-and-price-control/. [Accessed 2019].
[21] UK CAA, “Airport data 2018,” [Online]. Available: https://www.caa.co.uk/Data-and-analysis/UK-
aviation-market/Airports/Datasets/UK-Airport-data/Airport-data-2018/. [Accessed 2019].
[22] Groupe Aéroports de Paris, “Annual report 2018,” 2019.
[23] DSNA, “eAIP France,” [Online]. [Accessed 2019].
[24] H. Alders, New Environmental Standards and Enforcement System (NNHS), 2013.
[25] SESAR., European ATM Master Plan: Edition 2015.
[26] European Commission, Implementing Rule 29/2009.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 79/88
[27] European Commission, Implementing Rule 310/2015.
[28] European Commission, Implementing Rule 73/2010: Pilot Common Projects.
[29] Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, Notitie Reikwijdte en Detailniveau 2019.
[30] Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, Integrale behoeftestelling herziening luchtruim, 2019.
[31] Eurocontrol, European aviation in 2040: challenges of growth, 2018.
[32] E. Leeman, . T. Popova and D. Phythian, Airport Network Integration - Concept for establishment of an
Airport Operations Plan (AOP) – Network Manager, November 2018.
[33] DSNA, “Press release: Collaborative Advanced Planning,” 2016.
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 80/88
A ATC sector configurations
A 1 Amsterdam ACC
Amsterdam ACC can open up to five sectors depending on traffic demand. Historically the sectors
represent the flow directions into Schiphol Airport. All sectors share the responsibility within the SPY/PAM
area. One specific controller is responsible to detect and coordinate conflicting overflying traffic within
this area: the ACOMAN.
Common sector combinations for Amsterdam ACC are sector 1 and 2 and sector 4 and 5. At night-time all
sectors are combined and manned by a single team of one radar controller and one planning controller.
Sector 2 and 3 can even be split into an inbound and executive sector. For sector 2 this is common in
traffic peaks, for sector 3 this is in development and may be implemented by the summer of 2020.
All traffic from and into Schiphol and Rotterdam Airport cross one or more ACC sectors, sequentially.
Amsterdam ACC overall has a baseline declared capacity of 150 flights per hour in 2018 (NOR 2018).
Figure 45 Amsterdam ACC sectors, source: LVNL operations manual [9]
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 81/88
A 2 MilATCC Schiphol Area
MilATCC Schiphol Area, co-located at LVNL, can open up to two sectors depending on traffic demand:
Lower 1 and 2. The Lower 1 sector services air traffic in the northern part, while the Lower 2 sector services
the southern part of Dutch airspace. Air traffic from and into Lelystad Airport crosses at least the Lower 1
sector and depending on the direction also the Lower 2 sector. Air traffic from and into Eindhoven Airport
always enters the Lower 2 sector and a fraction also the Lower 1 sector. MilATCC Schiphol Area has no
declared capacities for their sectors. It should be noted that the MilATCC sectors overlap with the
Amsterdam ACC sectors. MilATCC will normally not control aircraft in the Amsterdam ACC sectors. In case
of a military need and after notification, MilATCC can control military flights in the ACC sectors. For these
situations it is for both parties clear whether the Lower 1 or 2 is in control of those flights.
Figure 46 Amsterdam ACC sector 2 [9]
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 82/88
Figure 47 MilATCC Lower 1 and 2 sectors [9]
A 3 MUAC
Contrary to Amsterdam ACC and MilATCC Area, MUAC, located in Maastricht, provides services in the
upper airspace from flight level 245 and above. This large area of responsibility, extending over The
Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and parts of Germany, can be divided into many ATC sectors. The
sectors of MUAC are grouped into the Brussels, Deco and Hannover sector groups and can open a total
number of 22 sectors. MUAC can open up to seven sectors in (and in the vicinity of) Dutch airspace
depending on traffic demand. Two of these sectors are largely and two others partly defined in Dutch
airspace: the Delta sector in the south, the Jever sector in the north and the Munster and Ruhr sectors in
the east. MUAC sectors all consist of a separate high sector, vertically divided from the elementary sector.
The Delta sector even has a middle sector in between the elementary and high sector. MUAC overall has a
baseline declared capacity of 329 flights per hour in 2018 (NOR 2018).
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 83/88
Figure 48 MUAC main sectors [9]
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 84/88
B Traffic flow analysis - winter season
B 1 Actual demand (number of movements) for winter season 2018
Sector 1
Sector 2
Sector 3
Sector 4
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 85/88
Sector 5
B 2 Capacity surplus - winter season (2018 actuals and growth scenarios 1and 2)
Sector 1
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 86/88
Sector 2
Sector 3
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 87/88
Sector 4
10 April 2020 19.282.05 pag. 88/88
Sector 5